Alaskan_Son

Not a bad approach. There's a reason thousands and thousands of companies are still using Windows XP. Its exactly this situation. They either can't get newer software that does what they need, or upgrading would be too cost prohibitive.

I have a special "tool" set up specifically for this purpose. The basic concept is that you convert your desired object(s) to a cabinet door symbol and then use a Bow Front cabinet to get your desired size and shape. Just download the attached symbol and follow these basic instructions: Download the attached object. Its really just a Bow Front Cabinet set to a Filler and with every element turned off except for a single Door Front. Select the object(s) you would like to curve, and click the Convert Selected to Symbol tool. Choose Symbol Category>Cabinet Door/Drawer, check Add to Library, and check Show Advanced Options. Click Okay. When the Symbol Specification dialog opens up, change the Y Position Origin Offset to 1/16" (this will cause the door symbol to hug the cabinet front with no gap between the door and the cabinet) Drop the previously downloaded "Symbol Arching Tool" cabinet into your plan Select your previously created Door/Drawer and hover over your "Symbol Arching Tool" cabinet. You should see the Replace From Library indicator. Click to replace. Change the width and height of the cabinet to adjust the overall width and height of the newly curved object and change the Bow Front Depth to adjust the radius of the curve. NOTE: It really helps visualize things a bit better if you at least temporarily turn on Show Closed Doors/Drawers in Plan View in your General Cabinet Defaults. When you get the shape you want, simply select the cabinet, Convert Selected to Symbol, and select Symbol Category>Fixture Symbol Arching Tool.calibz Using the tool above, I was able to grab a simple curtain from the core catalog and create this new symbol in just over a minute.

A couple things: 1. You don't actually need 2 offsets. Setting one or the other to 30" works just fine and does NOT result in casing with the little flat spot on the top. 2. You can also simply use a Tudor Arch with the radius set to zero.

I’m pretty heavily invested in Chief at this point but if I was just getting started, I would almost certainly be looking at either Softplan ot Archicad. Both of which offer an outright purchase option, one of which is notably more robust in quite a few ways, and one of which is notably cheaper. Chief has it’s own unique strengths, but I’m not sure any of that would matter since the subscription only model is a deal breaker for me and so I wouldn’t be digging that deep.

Here are my basic definitions: 2D = Lines, polylines, and fills drawn along X/Y axis 3D = Faces that exist on X/Y/Z axiis/planes Modeling = the act of actually creating the 3D objects Renderings = the production of simulated camera views of the 3D model

it’s not a problem with dimension strings. It’s a problem with the dimensions that are reporting to the schedule.

Yes. This is a pretty big deal as well. I feel like a policy needs to be adopted right up front that ties SSA to a fair and equitable percentage of the subscription license cost to ensure a consistent, measurable, and reasonably predictable value of our legacy licenses as they compare to the subscription licenses. Outside of this approach, I think it’s going to be far too easy to ostracize legacy users and make us feel like we’re not being treated fairly or that we’re getting hard armed into the subscription based system.

Be aware that Architectural Blocks may or may not show the desired width and depth values. It’s the biggest downside of going that route in my opinion. Architectural Blocks report the bounding box width along the plan’s X axis and they report the bounding box depth along the plan’s Y axis. That means you’ll get the desired dimensions in one specific orientation, you’ll get inverse dimensions in a perpendicular orientation, and you’ll get completely different dimension in a horizontal orientation.

I too would like to know what the policy moving forward is with regard to transferring existing perpetual licenses and whether or not those legacy license features will remain in force for the new owner. And what about additional seats for existing perpetual license holders? What are the transfer/sale options for those? The answers to the questions above not only affect the value of existing licenses but may also encourage or discourage the purchase of additional perpetual licenses between now and January 10.

...or you can add a few extra steps: Use the Delete Surface tool to delete that extra face Select the cabinet and Convert to Symbol (preferably without the countertop) Place the new symbol in position Use a Custom Countertop

Very close to what I did but one small difference: I simply selected one the of automatically generated roof planes, clicked the Copy/Paste tool, clicked the Paste Hold Position tool, opened the copy up, Locked the Ridge Top Height, changed the pitch, and then placed a couple breaks, reshaped, copied, and reflected.

C’mom Glenn, you must know you’re taking things out of context, and in my opinion you’re just proving my points. The discussion up until you complicated matters was clearly about adjusting the model to account for real world elevation data. Period.

Yes. The CAD Block is generated according to the Plan view (as viewed from the top). For your example that would likely mean dropping the object into the plan straight out of the library, clicking Open Symbol, selecting X Axis, and clicking either Rotate+ or Rotate- (depending on which side you wanted to see).

You can also optionally just take an elevation view, click CAD Detail From View, and then group select and Block the resulting linework.

Rotate the symbol either through the Symbol Specification dialog or in an elevation view. You just need to make sure to either: Manually click Generate Block in the Symbol Specification dialog (2D Block tab) Check Auto Generate (same location as mentioned above) Click Yes when you get the "Do you want to regenerate the 2D plan view symbol..." popup after rotating in elevation You also may or may not want to adjust the Smoothing Angle (General tab) and/or Fill settings (2D Block tab) depending on the object.

There are a lot of valid reasons to do so. One of which is that a person may not have the time, inclination, or even the verbiage which which to start an argument. Another might be that a person wants to show that they found a post unhelpful but didn't want to drag it through the mud. In this particular instance though, I'll just put it all out there for you. It was a little of everything. Not only did I know what I wanted to say might come across a bit degrading and I didn't want or have time to get into an ensuing argument/back and forth, but I also didn't really have all the words to say what I felt needed to be said if I was going to post a response. Since you really want to know though, I'll acquiesce and take some time to give you my feedback: I down-voted it because I felt like it only further serves to confuse people and opens up doors to bad practices for no great reason. You said it in the post yourself when you said: ...and then that's exactly what you did. It already took us (mostly me) way longer than it should have to finally get Gene to see the correct and proper way of achieving the desired end results. It finally clicked though and I feel like all you did with the majority of your post was throw mud back into the water--if not for Gene then for other users who might be reading along. The absolute last things someone should be doing in my opinion is presenting faulty and incorrect "methods" as potential options when there's already clearly a fundamental misunderstanding. In particular, I think you're bringing validity to something almost no one should be doing in a thread where it was truly unhelpful to the discussion at hand. Others users have the same hangups Gene does and by presenting those options in a thread like this, I think all you're really doing is opening the doors to further confusion. To be specific: Anyway, that's why I found your post unhelpful and marked it as such. By the way, for what its worth, I believe that may actually be the only time I have ever down voted one of your posts Glenn. I usually respect and agree with most of what you say. That probably added to my hesitancy to say something that I knew might come across as demeaning.

According to your drawing, all you need is 82.036° . 96 in 12 is about 82.875°. Where is the problem? By the way, we only have that limit in the Wall Specification dialog. The limit is 89° in the Build Roof and Roof Plane dialogs.

I would not think of that as a dormer at all. Its really just a box with a relatively shallow pitch roof. The dormer effect is being created by a steeper pitch roof facade that just wraps around the building. At least that's what it looks like to me. This is how I would handle it...

Any angle input dialog should accept values entered as pitch. Simply enter exactly what you typed in your example:

Part of the problem is that back in X12 we actually had Polyline Solids. We no longer have Polyline Solids. What we have are simply Solids. You need to create a hole in a Solid. We have at least a few options: 1. Draw a plain Polyline where you want your hole, click Convert Polyline, and select 3D Solid Hole 2. Draw a plain Polyline where you want your hole, select your Solid, click Polyline Subtraction, and then select your Plain Polyline 3. Select the desired Face of your Solid, click the Solid Feature tool, and draw a polyline where you want your hole.

You don't change the house floor from zero. You leave it at absolute zero. You simply change where the house floor is with relation to the terrain by adjusting the setting I already mentioned.

I wasn't presuming to tell you the exact numbers to enter. I was showing and telling you where the setting is that you new to change. It was in the post. The setting you need to change is Subfloor Height Above Terrain. The behavior is right there in the name of the setting too. How high do you want your subfloor (absolute zero) above the terrain zero (sea level)? In your case you probably want it at 97'. You can read more about it by clicking on the Help button when you're in that dialog.

No no no. Leave everything alone. You shouldn’t have changed the floor height or moved the roof. The only single change you had to make is the one I showed above.

As Joey alluded to... Terrain Specification>General>Building Pad>Subfloor Height Above Terrain That's exactly what the setting is for. It controls how the first floor sub-floor (absolute zero) is set in reference to the terrain elevation data (sea level).

I’ve had the same issue for years with a number of systems that utilize macros in schedules. My workaround is to shift the schedule back and forth real quick with the arrow keys or to use a recorded macro to do the same with a hotkey.