Alaskan_Son

It works in plan views, it works in layout, it works in elevation views, and it works in CAD details.

Update: I recently developed a method in X13 that actually does allow accessing and parsing the data from most of Chief's Global Macros...

I have a system for accessing and parsing that data.

I recently discovered a way in X13 to gain access to almost all of Chief's built-in "Global" macros. I believe the only exceptions are %wall.top_elevation% and %wall.bottom_elevation%. Email me at alaskansons@gmail.com and I'll send you the system for $25.00. You'll need to decide how and where exactly to use all the various values yourself, but all you have to do is drop a library object into your desired view and fully accessible global variables are automatically set to correspond with each of the following global macros: %client.name% %client.company% %client.phone% %client.secondphone% %client.cellphone% %client.fax% %client.website% %client.e-mail% %client.street% %client.city% %client.state% %client.zipcode% %client.country% %designer.name% %designer.company% %designer.phone% %designer.secondphone% %designer.cellphone% %designer.fax% %designer.website% %designer.e-mail% %designer.street% %designer.city% %designer.state% %designer.zipcode% %designer.country% %file.dir% %file.drive% %file.ext% %file% %file.name% %view.name% %scale% %sheet.size% %living.area% %page% %page.print% %numpages% %lastpage% %layout.label% %layout.title% %layout.description% %layout.comments% %revision.label% %revision.description% %revision.by% %revision.date% The values can be parsed using Ruby just like any other name:value pair. Any item we already have access to one way or another was intentionally excluded. Again, the system is $25.00 and includes a custom library object along with some simple instructions. My email address is alaskansons@gmail.com and my PayPal link is https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/alaskansons Either send me a payment along with an email address or send me an email and I’ll send over a payment request.

Please send that plan in to Technical Support. Regardless of how you got there, that’s a bug in my book, no doubt. You can force what you want by tricking Chief into properly recognizing the cylinder geometry like this: 1. Copy/Paste Hold Position that rotated cylinder. 2. Select both cylinders and complete a Union. 3. Complete your operation as usual.

to be clear, the process you are describing (although undoubtedly useful) is a different process with different functionality. The OP is very specifically referring to selecting objects on a specific layer. For example we might have a “Windows, Existing”, a “Windows, Demo”, and a “Windows, New” layer. Simply switching to the window tool won’t do us much good in those circumstances. The same can be said of walls, doors, roof planes, annotation objects, etc. etc. To select all objects on any given layer, I’m not sure there’s a much quicker methodology than the one I listed above unless we were to start moving the goalpost around a little bit.

You’re welcome, but with all due respect, your way is actually slower and requires extra steps to reset your “All Off” Layer Set. Also, I don’t believe my instructions were too wordy. I tried to keep it as minimal as possible. In fact, they’re so minimal that you are unlikely to make it work at all unless you invest the time and energy in fully reading and comprehending each and every step. In particular, read the Note: at the end of my post. If you really want to make the process quick and efficient, creating the extra layer set is key.

Barnstable flipped.pdf

Set landing heights manually and then simply drew stairs from landings to landings and from landing to ground. Same thing you tried to do with floors but with landings instead.

Are you sure you actually connected to the landings? I just tried it with your plan and it works just fine.

There probably is. I'm still not quite sure what the problem is. In reading back though though, and after having opened your plan file, I think I may have stumbled on it... You don't need to draw 5 floors. What you need to do is simply draw 5 Landings. Then the stairs can automatically reference those.

Lines 1 and 2 are NOT the same line weight as the rest, therefore your polyline is NOT fully enclosed... The line weight of the main polyline was just manually changed at some point... All you need to do is open it up and check the By Layer for the Weight. Then just click on one of the end nodes and then click on it again.

Can you explain why placing onto a different layer isn't a good solution?

Not sure I understand why anyone would need a floor at all. Is it just the automatically calculated Riser Heights that you're looking for?

+1. I was going to make the same suggestion myself.

I don't have a lot of time to dig into exactly what might be happening, BUT...Chief seems to be getting confused by not only the invisible wall Glenn mentioned, but also by the solid wall types being used to define the deck. Its as if Chief thinks those walls are the building when generating the deck supports. Change those to railing walls or Invisible walls and the problems also seem to go away that way. I would definitely send this one in to tech support.

I posted my own personal thought on the subject here...

Also bear in mind that you can ENTER values in a number of different formats provided that you also type in the appropriate unit indicators as well.

To be fair, I didn't actually accuse you of anything. I suggested that you make sure "you're not unintentionally pirating software" and that "the original purchaser isn't violating their license agreement." You could cost that person their license.

Chief has made it pretty clear over the years that they don't mind people keeping copies of previous version installed and even using them as necessary. I think the intent of that section is to keep people from using multiple version simultaneously.

I don't think the pony wall is the problem. Its the solid wall that's the problem. Normal railing walls with a defined height and with their newels and balusters (or panels) allow for easily following a terrain contour due to the very obvious and straightforward way these components can be logically be broken up and separated into individually undulating sections. A solid wall on the other hand has no such logical breaks. Its kinda like building a fence in real life. With regard to your specific application, it doesn't really sound like you actually need to use a workaround so much as it sounds like you just need to find (or make) yourself a suitable railing panel symbol. Note that you can also reshape solid walls in 3D and that you can overlap a room definition wall and a no room definition wall to get a few more options.

2 wall types of the same type (room definition and no room definition) cannot occupy the same plan view space. Try one set to room definition and another set to no room definition.

From the Help File Check Follow Terrain to have the railing or fencing follow the terrain smoothly. Not available if the selected railing is a Solid or a Pony Wall.

How so? You were quite obviously equating my response in another thread with your responses here. I think you're smart enough to know that there's a big difference. Regarding my hypocrisy. I think we all have a tendency to be hypocritical from time to time and I won't pretend to be innocent. To be honest, I normally wouldn't have cared so much if someone had brought up an opinion in passing like you did. I do it all the time myself, but this was a little different. Not only was it really besides the point seeing as how the OP had already clearly stated his rationale for wanting to do so, but 3 of you guys kinda attacked the guy in a really insulting way. Plus, I feel like some of the statements were really unhelpful and unproductive. I absolutely hate the idea of Chief removing a capability because someone thinks it should never be used. You can argue all you want, but if someone finds it easier and more productive to work with cm, even if they want to use cm on the plans, then that's really their prerogative. And whether its an accepted standard in most circles or not, cm are still used in certain applications and as such, if a person wants to use them they should be able to. At the end of the day though, I really just didn't like the way so many of you guys swooped in and ripped on the OP. It just seemed kinda mean and unproductive with regards to the question that was posed.

I was actually typing up a response when you posted that but decided to hold off. For the first question, I really shouldn't even dignify that with a response. If you don't already understand then what I say will be of no value to you. For the second part, I never actually said the standard of using mm was subjective (even though that could actually be argued in certain circles as well). What I said was that the choice was subjective. And just FYI, I carefully consider how and when I use downvotes, and I try to only use them when I legitimately feel a post is unhelpful or misleading.