Alaskan_Son

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.

Like I said, I didn't want to get into an argument or debate. Only reason I even said anything to start with was to say that there are those of use who feel the same about the metric system as you guys do about the imperial system. Its also clear to me now that my stance requires a much longer explanation, that I left a good handful of important details out, and that in my attempt at a quick and to the point post I may have oversimplified and come across as ignorant. Oh well, a full explanation really requires a short essay on the subject.still don't want to get into it. I will answer your questions though... -No I was not joking, I was dead serious and right or wrong its something I actually feel pretty strongly about. -I will concede that my stance lies partly with the fact I'm accustomed to the imperial system but its goes much much deeper than that and its not all based on ignorance as you may think. -I used the fractions to try and communicate what exactly .25 and .33 are representing (or claiming to represent).

I think metric sucks. There's really nothing useful or logical about it other than easier conversion. I really don't want to get into an argument so I'll say my quick piece and leave it at that... The imperial system actually has a lot of unsung benefits, is more functional for everyday life, and is actually designed to work like we naturally think. It's also more "modular" and works better for visual purposes for that reason. Our brains can easily picture 1/4 or 1/3 of something but what about 25/100 or 33.33/100.00? I can also pretty accurately visually guesstimate 4ft. 2in. but what about guesstimating 127cm? There are actually a lot of benefits to the imperial system that people tend to overlook. The basis of the metric system is really just as abitrary as anything else...numbers (and specifically the base 10 system). Is it really the numbers that matter or the ideas we're trying to communicate? For scientists and mathamaticians, metric might start to make a little more sense, but for the masses...maybe not so much.

You actually need to select the roof plane first, click on the polyline subtraction tool, and then click the polyline you drew for the hole... OR ...just select the roof plane and then click "Create Hole"... OR ...select your plain polyline, click "Convert Polyline" and then select "Hole In Roof / Custom Ceiling" from the list... OR ...Build>Roof>Skylight. Draw the skylight, open the DBX and uncheck "Skylight". There may be other methods as well. But those are a few options.

I can easily reproduce in a new plan. Definitley looks like a bug to me and should be reported to tech support. In the meantime, try using a cabinet mounted outlet. The ones in Chief's library don't behave all that well though so if you want you can get some better, slightly modified versions of the same in this thread... https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/7955-improved-cabinet-outlets/?hl=outlets

Sounds like some kind of addict group...PUA (Power Users Anonymous). The first step is to admit you're a user. If you're a POWER user...well then you're really in trouble.

Oh I get it, and it's a great suggestion, just not a big fan of the negative attitude, and BTW, I'll still try to get around to the 3D version video here sometime... Having a hard time deciding which method to use...I've come up with about a dozen different methods (using moldings, p-lines, solids, slabs, CAD blocks, or various combinations thereof). Some that display the T and L profiles in elevations, and some that don't, some that are faster but less accurate, some that are more flexible, etc. It really depends on what people want to display in their individual plans, how they want to display those things and to what accuracy. And FWIW, 3D actually doesn't take much longer than 2D.

What you are describing is really the basic idea of "BIM" (Building Information Modeling).

Yes, and 6 freakin' years ago Chief was way ahead of VW with some things as well. In fact Chief is way ahead of a number of other programs in a good handful of areas. I wish people would stop acting like every little thing they've seen or used in another software is an absolute necessity in Chief and that its somehow an absolute travesty when we don't have it. Consider doing this...Make a suggestion, adjust your methods, and try not to be so negative. Its seriously really discouraging and doesn't promote a very productive atmosphere.

Yep. You can use it to do the CAD grid just like in your screenshot. That's another extremely quick way to get the job done. Actually the main reason I used CAD lines in the video is that it sounded closer to what Edward was already doing, and I think they're a little easier to manipulate and keep track of for most people. Moving around a group of polylines is just a little trickier. If I find a few extra minutes that will be in my next video.

If I get around to making the 3D version video I'll show you, but the way you use that tool is to RIGHT click, drag (primary offset), let go, drag in second direction (secondary offset) and left click to finish. You can trick the program into using only the secondary offset but it's a little quirky and not very consistent so I don't do it.