Alaskan_Son

That's not actually true. Cabinets, electrical items, furniture, and various fixtures all have labels as well as other usable data fields.

Try Preferences>Reset Options>Reset Side Windows

You bet

I don't think SIMS is catching up or that Chief is falling behind. That sort of thing has been possible for quite sometime using free or very cheap programs. They are all extremely limited and lacking with regard to any true "intelligence", detail specific customization, and plan production. Its all visual fluffery if you ask me. The most "advanced", expensive, and fully "BIM" modelling apps aren't anywhere near working like that either and there's a reason. It simply doesn't work for anything that requires accurate modelling...period. If you want accuracy you're going to have to put in the time...no way around it.

One of my sons using that same method to create little Lego movies and claymation videos.

Incorrect. It can be used in elevations and sections as well (you can even place any number of your note symbols on specific layers so they will only display in your desired views). And plants aren't the only objects you can use as the basis for your schedule either. This video might be worth a look for those interesting in the basics of how to set the system up...

Its probably because either... A. Your brick has no pattern assigned. B. You have patterns toggled off (3D>Toggle Patterns). Probably the latter.

Yes you can.

You can also search 3D warehouse, there is quite a bit of 3D lettering in there. Especially this guy or gal's work... https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/user.html?id=1201444623356647547830102

Orthographic or perspective? If its 3D lettering you're after, this is a bit of a pain in Chief. Doable, but a hassle. Check out this program... http://www.armanisoft.ch/elefont/Elefont.html I believe AutoCAD and Adobe illustrator have the ability to convert text to line work which could then be imported into Chief and used to create 3D text. Within Chief though you would have to create polylines and convert them to solids. Doable, but again...a pain.

This is a good idea as well and can essentially use Chief for the bulk of the work. No need for a rendering program. Good suggestion Dennis.

That appears to be correct. Yes.

In addition to the methods listed above, you can also very easily use 3D molding polylines, wall coverings, material regions, and/or polyline solids. If you have a situation where windows drop down into the wainscot, the tall molding method becomes an issue. This is where I believe wall coverings or material regions would do a better job for the wainscot itself. And for the panels...you can open an elevation view, draw a 3D moulding polyline, assign whatever molding you want, Copy and Paste In Place, and then convert to Polyline Solid or Material Region. This will give you a very flexible panel and perimeter molding to work with which can be blocked and then copy and pasted or otherwise distributed as necessary. You can also use this method to quickly create a custom symbol to use as Tommy and Joe suggested. Just copy the block and paste into a blank plan, take a 3D view and then convert to symbol.

Tommy, you should read the thread I referenced as well. Go through the steps in that thread and you won't need to run as administrator.

What you are looking for is some pretty heavy duty rendering software and there are a good handful out there. Most aren't that cheap though and will require a lot more learning time. I know one program a lot of the guys use is Lumion.

I agree. This should be handled better by the software. Maybe post a suggestion. I was just giving you suggestions on the easiest fixes we currently have available (at least that I know of).

As Graham suggested, you can drag down the wall to cover it up but then you'll likely just end up with z-fighting. To get rid of the z-fighting, you could slightly increase the thickness of the wall finish material or add a material region with maybe a 1/8" thickness (make sure to uncheck Cut Finish Layer Of Parent Object). OR if accuracy isn't too important, you could make your ceiling finish thinner (its the thickness of your ceiling finish that you're seeing).

Rob, read this thread. I had the same issue and its gone now. https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/8519-opening-x7-andor-x8/

I think he was referring to the Custom Backsplash tool. If you're not familiar with it, its essentially a material region that automatically reshapes itself around cabinets, appliances, bathtubs, and other various items that are placed against the wall.

I always just place a text box over the line. You can however also just create your own line style pretty easily...

Hahaha . That's hilarious and totally true. I'm giving you a point for that. Anyway, I think its really just personal preference. I know the consensus is often in favor of one particular method over another, but I also know there are usually a number of us in disagreement for our own reasons. I for one totally disagree with some of the regulars on at least one or two of the items that are generally accepted as "the way to do it". That being said, both methods I'm sure have their strengths and weaknesses. I for one have always put foundations on floor zero and only floor zero, but then again it depends on what you want to show. Even if you want to build the foundation on 2 floors and display it all on one floor, its not hard to use reference layer sets to do that as Larry suggested (not so sure about the "inflexible" part). Not sure that helped, but that's my thoughts.

...at least that is the case with Windows. Do Macs work the same way?

I think some people simply don't realize how fonts work, that they do not really travel with the file, and that in order to use them on another machine they must actually be installed on that machine (as well as every other computer involved along the way) or else they must be replaced (albeit only during edits in some cases).

That tool only shows up in the edit toolbar ( or by right clicking) after an item is selected.

Agreed. To reiterate what was said in that other thread, a Terrain Feature has a correctly functioning (and accessible) thickness attribute, HOWEVER, we lose many the "intelligent" behaviors provided by roads and driveways.