Alaskan_Son

Yup. I think that's a pretty common trap. Spending 2 hours futzing around with some "simple" macro that may or may not work just ate up the time it would have taken to make an excel template and do the copy and paste thing 100 times.

Can probably be done with some custom text macros like I think I did in that graded pricing system I made for you a while back, but I think the easiest thing for most people is to simply copy and paste the schedule to an excel template that runs the totals and then copy back over. You can also use the Material List which opens up a bunch more possibilities, especially since you can add some specialized Components.

My thoughts for whatever they're worth to you: Abandon the idea of using Ruby and wall labels. I think you'll find its just a time sync that ultimately won't work or it will just work like crap even if you manage to make it somewhat functional. I personally think we try to hard sometimes to remove some step and the resulting solution is more problematic than the original problem. In this particular case, I think 3 plans is the most effective solution. Having said that... Don't forget that we have a Wall Hatching tool that can be used in lieu of CAD boxes or polylines. Also don't forget that you can place different walls on different layers, that we can use different layer sets for our as-built reference, and that those layer sets can have fills or not, and can be drawn on top or bottom. It may be that you can layer your as-built and proposed plan a little more effectively to simulate your demo walls.

By the way, possibly even more handy...this method works when a Measurement is converted to a float as well. In fact, this even works with feet and inches. @ChiefPlagman, I'm curious if there are any other hidden formatting controls using these seemingly secret string and float arguments that don't require initializing the NumberFormatter?

Wow, that's a surprising and handy little trick. I don't see that one listed anywhere in the documentation.

The shortcuts only work with a limited subset of the built-in units. I suspect in large part that is due to the formatting limitations imposed by Ruby’s method naming conventions. It’s probably just too risky to allow custom units to create matching methods when there’s no telling what the name of that unit might be. Anyway, to answer your last question, there are a whole handful of ways to do what you are after using the Measurement class, the NumberFormatter, or both, but pretty much all of them require both making the conversion (either in Float form or in Measurement form) and then specifying the unit in two distinct steps. I’m not sure I can think of any way to do so in a single step. You could of course write any number of custom macros that would carry out the whole operation in a single process, but inside that macro it would still require taking both of those steps.

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.