Alaskan_Son

Sounds like Alan is using 3D objects to create his plot plan instead of just using CAD in plan view (as opposed to using CAD in a CAD Detail). There are really quite a few ways to do this. A person could... -Use CAD in a CAD Detail -Use CAD right in a plan view -Use generic 3D objects in a plan view -Use the terrain tools in a plan view -Use a combination of the above -Use a combination of plan views and reference sets I personally usually just draw the plot plan up using CAD on the first floor and put it all on it's own unique layer. Edit: After reading Perry's post below I realized I should probably clarify something. I don't use CAD for anything that I'm already going to be drawing up...only for extraneous items such as lot lines, wells, septics, outbuildings, neighboring buildings, roads, power poles, power lines, etc. and even then, some of those items might be getting drawn in 3D anyway in which case I wouldn't use CAD for those either.

Hey, Thanks! Never noticed that there : )

The most efficient method kinda depends a little on exactly what information you have and how it's formatted. Can you post the survey (or whatever it is that you have to work with)?

Good idea Dave! That's another good alternative assuming you don't want to show opening indicators. Never thought of doing that. Wasn't possible before X8. Thanks

Eric, just one man's opinion here, but I personally think the way you write dimensions in inches is one of the confusing methods (32w x 48h instead of 32"w x 48"h or some other way that includes the inch symbol or inch abbreviation). Because you have both numbers you'll likely never have a problem, but if you get someone lazy writing up your order they may only choose to look at one of them, and if they look only at the second number you could potentially have issues. Just my $0.02.

I have always called in my orders verbally and usually use both terms to clarify. Having said that, Jere is correct. It's all about how you say it or write it. For a 2040 window... You could SAY "twenty by forty" or "twenty forty" and screw it up or you could say "two oh four oh" and get it right. Or you could "two zero four zero", "two zero by four zero", or "two oh by four oh" and just confuse people. You could also write it a ton of different ways...some of which could lead to confusion. In my experience the most correct way is to use superscript for the second number of each dimension (I would write it that way now but I don't know how on the forum). I beleiev 2040 is also an acceptable alternative though. Beyond that you have: -20 40 (bad) -20x40 (bad) -20" x 40" (just plain wrong and very bad) -24"x48" (correct) -I'm sure there are plenty others. It just needs to be communicated correctly one way or another and like I said I have always done that verbally just to be sure, and if I don't use BOTH terminologies I will usually just use inches (especially when ordering oddball sizes).

This is something I personally have to draw up on almost every single job and no, its not something Chief can do automatically. I have requested it in the past. Maybe its time for another request. You can address this one of a few ways... 1. The best option in my opinion is to simply place the hardware "manually". Drop a piece of hardware into a plan view and then adjust it in elevation views to get it where you want it. Put it on a unique layer and just turn that layer off in your plan views. You could either set the pullout to be a "Drawer - Panel" so you only have to set the on piece of hardware or you could set it as a "Drawer" and set both pieces of hardware manually. 2. Depending on the cabinet style and how you like them to display, you can stack 2 cabinets. This way your lower drawer (the pullout) can have the handle placement set independent of the upper drawer. 3. If all you have is a pullout (no drawer above) you can simply make it a drawer and set the hardware placement. In this situation I guess it would be pretty automatic. Regardless of which method you used though I wouldn't set that item as a door like you did in the screenshot you posted but would set it as a drawer. Hope that helps.

Hey Jim, I didn't spend a whole lot of time looking at it, and I'm not exactly sure what your structure is supposed to look like, but its looking like Eric probably guessed correctly. You need to actually cut a hole in that lower roof to allow those walls to build through correctly.

Plan?

Right here Mickey...

Is that Chief's automatic label or your own text box? I suspect that it's Chiefs automatic label which limits what you can do with it. I would personally just use my own text box along with a macro for that. Having said that, if those top two items are Chiefs automatic labels, I would consider that a problem that needs to be addressed and would report it to tech-support.

I guess there's 2 directions a person could go. 1. Draw it the way it makes sense to you and work only with people who think the same way. OR 2. Draw for your audience. I'm personally in favor of the latter. I've found it to be a pretty universal truth that people have their strengths and weaknesses. Adapting to compensate for a weakness (ability to mentally combine multiple foundation drawings into one in this case) to take full advantage of a persons strengths can pay off handsomely. I run into it all the time. Subs that are extremely talented at what they do but they may be very poor at math, or very poor at reading plans, or whatever. You could easily be "weeding out" so fine craftsmen just because they don't think like you do. I'm not trying to boast here, just trying to make a point, but I'm a pretty smart guy...typically at or near the top of my class with most things I have ever done, amongst the highest scoring with any tests I take, I'm very good at envisioning things and I have a good eye for detail (we typically get plans through permitting on the first try and I ace most my inspections...both of which are fairly unusual around here). I can understand and work with a foundation plan drawn up on multiple pages but it's not easy for me. It just makes a lot more sense being able to see it as one piece if reasonably possible and I really see now downside to doing it that way. Just my thoughts.

We do the same thing. When I said single pour I really just meant that the foundation was all one single unit as in the footings are all formed up and poured as one piece and same with the walls.

That makes sense. We'll just have to agree to disagree though. IMO having a foundation drawn up on multiple levels (at least in a good handful of situations) is just asking for problems. A lot of guys don't comprehend things that way. And if the foundation is a single pour as it often times would be in those situations, it makes perfect sense to me to have it all on a single sheet...at least one overview anyway.To each his own though. There are MANY other reasons to use reference sets though. Again, just comes down to your drawing style though.

The topic of this thread is one very good example. As Todd said, there are situations where a house on a sloping lot could pretty easily have a single foundation that spans 3 or 4 floors. In that situation it could be very impractical if not impossible to draw it all on one floor but a person would probably want to show the entire foundation in a single plan view.

Joey, How do you display items from other floors without using reference sets? Do you strictly overlap views in layout? If so, for anyone unfamiliar with what we're talking about, one of the major benefits of using ref sets IMO is that you can see exactly what your view in layout will look like while you're working on it in plan view. By overlapping views in layout you can achieve the same end product but you can only see one of the views at a time while you're working on them...unless of course you have the reference display on, but then I don't see why I person wouldn't simply use that then.

Why not just use the actual reference display? I'm starting to think a lot of people simply have never used this feature and don't know how. There's got to be some videos or articles in the Help files on this. Todd, your question is directly tied to that in your other thread. To start with, you have to make sure your layout box is using the same layer set AND reference layer set that you're seeing in your plan view. Unless you change it, your layout will always remember and use the combination of layer set and reference set that you were using when you sent the view to layout. I'll try to make a short video if I can find a little extra time (unless somebody else gets around to it first).

Todd, once you figure out how to manipulate reference sets (and layer sets in general) for this purpose, you'll realize it's a snap. Only takes a few seconds. For the foundation on 3 or 4 levels you can combine reference sets with overlapping views sent to layout. Simply copy/paste in place your layout box and switch the floor being displayed and reference floor. Doing it this way you can essentially show all 4 floors with only 2 overlapping layout boxes.

Structure tab now.

I'm actually on my iPhone screen at the moment so I'll try to keep it brief and to the point. If you have parts and pieces of the foundation on 2 different floors but you want them in the same view, simply set up one layer set to display 1 of the 2 foundation sections exactly as you want it to display. Then do the same thing for the foundation section on the other floor. Now you have both halves of your view but on different floors. Now all you have to do is turn on the reference display, set your reference floor to the appropriate floor level (probably 0 or 1), and use the layersets you set up in the aforementioned steps. Once you send that view to layout, that layout view will remember both layersets and the appropriate floor, and all your items will be visible in the same layout box.

Edit>Default Settings>Plan...check "Ignore Casing for Opening Resize".

Yes. A person could send multiple overlapped views to layout but if I am understanding correctly, I believe that properly using reference sets would probably be a better way to achieve the same thing.

Where do you have your libraries located? I'm suspecting your issue has something to do with your file structure and it's the link you're losing and not the actual library. Just a thought.

You bet. There are a ton of techniques people use for these situations but what I usually do is drag a wall down in elevation, cap it with a custom countertop (usually the thickness of tile) and then build the glass with polyline solid(s).

I personally use polyline solids for my glass panels.