Alaskan_Son

I'm aware of and familiar with that code section. There's nothing in there that precludes a simple winder without the fillet though. If you're referring to the sharp corners he sketched in there, I agree...those are a code violation. I believe removing the fillet was the point though, not the exact shape of the treads in that sketch.

Thank you. That's very kind of you : ) The one big downside to using that method of course is that your dimensions are no longer tied to the objects though so just bear that in mind. Any changes to the plan and you'll have to move any of those pt. to pt. dimensions around again. In that case though you can just turn those point markers back on (might help if you made them a color that sticks out) move accordingly and then turn back off.

You're welcome. In regard to my response to Alan. He was (presumably) saying that he likes to place his camera where it cuts through items he will be dimensioning (exterior walls in his example). I assume this is so he can pick up the necessary snap points to draw some reference lines. Those snap points are really just created by the automatically created cross section lines. I kinda suspect that most people don't really even know those lines exist because they are locked by default. If you unlock them and hit W to switch to the Line tool you can then easily group select them using Shift + a marquis selection box and Cut or Copy/Paste Hold Position into the re-positioned camera view. I was really just trying to help Alan (or anyone else reading this) skip the extra step of actually drawing the reference lines.

You're more than welcome.

I had the same misunderstanding the first time I saw that new box pop up. You don't actually have to enter the key. Its just showing you the first 4 digits similar to the way they do for your credit card number on various receipts and forms. Don't enter anything when that box pops up. Simply click Activate. It works exactly the same as it used to. it just looks different now.

Here's the help article to go with that bonus library... https://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-02781/creating-a-log-truss.html I would personally probably just build the roof, create a standard truss, create a CAD Detail From View of that truss, and then use that as a template along with primitive solids (mostly just the cylinder) to build the truss from scratch.

Not sure if you realize this or not, but you can simply unlock the Cross Section Lines layer, Shift Select those lines and then Cut/Paste Hold Position instead of placing new CAD lines.

I'm sorry, I don't have a perfect answer for you. Dimensioning in elevation views could really use some improvements. Its always been very buggy and inconsistent in my experience. I find myself resorting to point to point dimensions quite often. And I also find myself using CAD Detail From View for elevation work all the time. Maybe consider doing this for your problem dimensions... 1. Create a CAD Detail From View. This will give you easy snap points to work with. 2. Dimension that CAD detail. 3. While still using a dimension tool, Shift Select your dimensions. 4. Cut (Control+X) or Copy (Control+C) and Paste Hold Position (Control+Alt+V) those dimensions back into your original elevation. 5. Switch to the Point Marker tool and shift select all the point markers that were automatically created and put them on their own layer. This way you can turn them on and off as necessary for any future changes. Unrelated to the suggestion above, but you can also try isolating the layers that you wish to dimension to help get rid of conflicting snap points.

I don't believe there's anything wrong with the metal pattern. Its probably just your lighting. Try rotating the symbol or toggling your sunlight off and see if that answers your question.

Yep. And several of those appear to be exactly what the OP is asking for and I don't believe there has to be any code violation. To answer the question...Drawing stairs in Chief isn't one of my areas of expertise and I rarely spend much time on them (I've actually BUILT far more than I've drawn) but I don't see why you couldn't simply do that with multiple landings. It's the way most people would frame them anyway.

Since when is that illegal? Been a number of years since I've built a set of winders, but as far as I know the ICC hasn't changed any of those requirements in quite some time. Can someone point me to the code section you're referring to? Or is it possibly a local amendment?

Its very subjective and in large part its a matter of personal preference, but I'm with Alan on this one. I would lean toward a gable if its an option. That being said... In addition to the other advice above, I don't feel like drawing it up, but you could also use more of a turret type roofline and thereby use whatever kind of pitch you want.

Its not cutting a hole in your countertop because your countertop is not a countertop at all, its a FIXTURE (or symbol). Try using a custom countertop instead of that fixture and it works fine.

Or… Instead of deleting and reinstalling the whole catalog, copy and paste everything except that one item from that folder to a new folder and then either delete the old folder or move it to the trash and then empty the trash.

I'm not talking about a plinth block. I'm talking about an additional piece of crown. Kinda like these…Mark's example is slightly different because it's an outside corner but the same basic principle applies.

Not exactly true. It just requires a transition piece.

I don't see why some people have such a problem with this. It's the way wall, floor, and ceiling structure layers work already. It seems like they're just making things a little more consistent and adding functionality.

Yep. It has been suggested in the past and I would love to see that functionality as well.

Yep. Agreed. I think this is the way to go too. It's the same method I spelled out in detail in the thread I posted a link to. I just didn't want to write it up again.

This thread might be helpful. https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/9572-brick-water-table/?fromsearch=1

I get it and fully sympathize. I think we actually affect a lot more change than you might think. I've seen it first hand with some of my requests and bug reports over the years. The one thing I would reiterate though is that reporting your problems and requests DIRECTLY to technical support (ESPECIALLY suspected bugs) seems to carry a little more weight. The suggestion forum is great as well, it just doesn't seem to get quite as much attention or feedback directly from Chief.

Try this... In your Layer Display Options, change the Text Style for your various Labels layers.

You can find some clues here... https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/8942-fancy-cad-blocks-for-symbols-that-remain-consitent-between-2d-and-3d/#entry79240

What method are you trying to use to center them?

Not sure whether you were joking or not, but I think nearly the exact same way. I though half of 88 minus half of a quarter...44 minus 1/8. Easy peasy. Having said that, I don't typically divide numbers in half to find the center of a room, whenever possible I pull a dimension from one side to roughly center...I just pick a number that's around the center and place a mark, then I pull the same number from the opposite side and mark that. This gives me 2 marks that are very close to each other and I can usually find the center of that very quickly. The 2 shorter measurements are usually faster and easier than trying to pull the longer dimension anyway, can usually be done from a single location (and by myself), usually result in a more accurate location (partly because there's very little calculation that needs to take place and involves no rounding to get a perfect number), and are by very nature a way of double checking myself. Once I find the center I usually measure both ways again to verify they're correct but they're very usually right on the money.