Alaskan_Son

I definitely wouldn’t say that I know Ruby inside out. Even if I did though, all that knowledge and expertise would be old but useless in this situation since the required syntax was all written and specified by Chief.

They are. You can for example do the conversion using something like %area.convert_to("acre")% or you can specify your new Unit using the NumberFormatter as well.

In the Components panel and in the Materials List for starters.

I have no answer for you, but I wonder if it has anything to do with this...

I personally use an Upvote when I feel a post was truly helpful, a Downvote when I feel the post was truly unhelpful, and a Like when I simply like a post even though it may or may not have actually been helpful. Maybe it was some kind words, maybe it was hysterical, or maybe it’s just something I agree with but that wasn’t necessarily helpful or productive.

Its not about correct vs. incorrect. Its about expected vs unexpected and consistent vs. inconsistent. As soon as you start rounding numbers you are already making them incorrect. The question is...how exactly do you want to change them so that they're being displayed to your desired level of accuracy without creating undesirable results elsewhere. Something always has to give. You just have to decide which inaccuracy you're willing to live with. Draw more accurately. Choose a more appropriate rounding accuracy. Shift the whole drawing so that its at a more suitable location on the rounding grid. Switch one or more of your defaults to Distance Rounding as Chopsaw already mentioned and risk numbers not adding up. Manually override as you already mentioned and risk both numbers not adding up and the possibility of changing something and having your numbers completely wrong. Leave it alone. It may not be rounding as you are expecting, but everything adds up, and how much does it really matter for the sake of the plans? Is it actually important that the numbers on top and the numbers on bottom are mirrors of each other? Or does it just bother YOU because you happen to know that they should be identical? Pick your poison.

This example highlights exactly why Grid Rounding is so important. The bottom dimensions do what you might expect now, but see what happens when you try to add those up with the numbers across the midline/partition wall area... A+B+C+D = 12.19 when the plot plan shows that it should be 12.20 It’s not a bug. It’s intended rounding behavior that ensures dimensions always add up across the plan.

You're more than welcome my friend . Thank YOU for the kind words!

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...