Alaskan_Son

I wouldn't call what the moderator said in that thread a confirmation that it's a problem. They just said they would share the behavior with the team. The team may very well have looked at it and said "That's how its supposed to work". Anyway, I really think they work exactly like they're supposed to . I responded with my explanation in that thread so as not to hijack this one.

Just do a save as of the plan and layout right now and then make all the changes you want to the second version. No need to go back and try to undo anything... If you don't like your changes, simply revert to the old plan. That's how I personally handle situations like that anyway.

Try using Edit Area (All Floors). If I understand your question correctly, I believe it should do exactly what you are looking for.

You're very welcome!

Diane, You can make the walls align in several ways. The first 3 that come to mind are... 1. Change the thickness of the brick veneer on that foundation wall to 4-7/16" 2. Set the foundation offset in the wall definition for the upper walls to 9/16" 3. Move the brick veneer on the foundation walls down to a main layer and then set the upper walls to foundation to exterior of brick. Also, I just happened to notice the 2 outside corners on the front of your house have a funky void on the corner. Open those 2 front walls one at a time and on the wall type tab under pony wall, set it to display the lower wall in plan view...Now click on Edit Wall Layer Intersections and use the edit handle for that exterior brick layer to drag it out to meet the face of the brick on that adjacent wall. When you're done fixing both walls you can set it back to displaying the upper wall in plan view. Hope that helps.

A few things that come to mind… Are you accidentally sending to layout as an image? Do you have it set to print in color in the print dialog box? Are colors toggled on in your layout?

No. I didn't miss anything. I understood all that.

I have never messed with that particular option. I'm curious now though… Does checking that box cause line weights to VARY (i.e. retain their aspect ratio and become thinner for smaller scales and thicker for a larger scales) or does it cause them to stay consistent?

I just think its wise to be careful what we ask for is all. If there are obvious potential drawbacks and costs, it might be a good idea not to try and push an issue too hard. We may get exactly what we ask for...and find it it wasn't worth the cost. Not saying that's the case with this, just think its worth considering.

Lew, I have no doubt the method you described would work and I don't believe it would be too difficult to accomplish. I just think it would miss the target by a mile. You would still have 4 different plans to manually modify and sync. I guess it's not a bad idea and it might serve a purpose, but its nothing like the "phase" idea. The key to making any good, usable "phase" system would be to be able to place ONLY the new objects being modified and have the connections work correctly for all options.

Just figured this out. In your Window Schedule defaults, you have to check "Include Type" in the label tab for the type to display in the labels (whether or not a schedule is even dropped into the plan). And it works the same way for other schedules. I think what must happen is that when we check that box the additional macro is added to the automatic label for that particular object type.

You bet.

Johnny and Boxon, you have to Convert Curve to Polyline AND THEN Convert Polyline to 3D Molding. If you've started with a 3D Molding Polyline you'll have to convert that back to a plain polyline first.

You can also just specify each one of those segments as a Blank Segment (Segments tab of the dimension dbx).

1,000 words...

Click on that little "Number Style" button in the lower left hand corner of the dbx.

I'm not at my computer and I don't use window schedules much so I'm not sure about this, but if you drop a window schedule into the plan, open the schedule, and click on the label tab is there a checkbox for "include type"?

Click on the door or window. Down in the edit toolbar is a tool called Components. Enter comments in the comment field for the door or window in that dbx.

Painting walls works a little differently in X8 than it used to, but depending on which mode you are in if you use the spray can it can change the material for all the walls in that particular room. When it does that, it does not change the actual wall material...only what you see in 3-D. That material change is recorded in the room definition and not the wall definition.

Wall materials are a little unique in that they can be controlled by EITHER the wall definition or the room definition... but not both. Not at my computer to verify exactly where it is, but if you open the room dialog box, click on the material tab, and then double-click the material you want to change you should have an option down near the bottom that says "use default material" or something like that. Check that box.

I would welcome a feature like that as well, but I think its a whole lot easier said than done. Because of Chief's room based modelling approach and because of the way walls, floors, and roofs make automatic connections, I'm thinking multiple walls would be next to impossible...which is probably the reason we're currently limited to having only 2 walls occupy the same space (1 normal and 1 no room definition)...even with just those 2 we run into connection issues. Any more than that and how is Chief supposed to know how to make any of those connections? Like anything there would also be unexpected costs and consequences . We would either have to start manually setting each and every wall, floor, and roof connection parameter, or the program would become slower and more complicated, or it would get more expensive, or likely a bit of all 3...before you know it we have Revit. If that's what you want, go buy Revit. Would the feature be cool? Maybe. Would it be worth it? Probably not. Just my opinion.

Two things I'd like to say here. Number one, just because we hear a request often doesn't make it realistically feasible. Chief's room based system works differently than many other design programs. I think it may simultaneously be one if its biggest strengths and its biggest weaknesses. I believe most everything and everybody that is really good at anything is going to have this same problem. Number two, just because you see another program do something doesn't make what we're doing in Chief a "workaround". That's simply ridiculous.

Yep. That's what I was talking about.

Turning off ceiling break lines didn't actually fix anything. It just hid your problem so you can no longer see it in plan view. I only took a quick look, but truth is that I don't see any "glitches". As Johnny suggested you just don't have a super clean model is all. I'm not sure where to start as I'm obviously not very familiar with your project, but you have some discrepancies between your roof heights, your ceiling heights, your roof structure settings, your soffit settings, your roof overhangs, and/or your deck wall settings...maybe all the above...and maybe even more than that. All the issues can be fixed by changing the correct settings though.

No no no. This idea is not that crazy. I don't feel the need to use it for very many things, but for a handful of items like light fixtures the library is just a huge hassle to search through. Only a couple clicks to open a light fixture plan and create an overview where you could quickly and easily see all the various options and compare/contrast.