Alaskan_Son

File>Export>Export Thermal Envelope Data

Huh? How are those 2 things different? You know what, forget it. You guys obviously have it all figured out without me. Carry on.

I wasn’t responding to that last post. Bottom line is that you guys claimed the configuration was no longer possible in X13. I proceeded to show that it was though, and through multiple permutations since it was unclear which part you guys were having a problem reproducing. I’m glad I could help show that it still works though.

I understand that was established a long time ago. Mick mentioned it about 30 posts back. I guess I’m lost now. You made the statement to the effect that it was no longer possible to make from scratch in X13. What is it that you’re claiming we can’t do in X13 then?

I actually don't know of any way to set a default for the Bridging and although I could be wrong, don't believe there ever has been one.

Here @MarkMc, I just stepped back into the office and made those quick modifications just to show that its still possible. I haven't seen any evidence of lost functionality... Test 2.plan

Read the little P.S. at the end of my last post. You just need to change 2 little things to get the same results in X13. I just didn’t do them because I wasn’t 100% sure which part you were talking about that was not reproducible in X13. And the other ways are all pretty similar. I don’t have the time or desire to get into them. They’re basically just simple variations of the same using minor differences in face settings like using None instead of Openings for example. No real differences worth noting IMO. I just know I came up with the same results using a number of different settings.

Can you show us where that option used to be?

Here you go. One of several ways to do it. Created using the OOB X13 Residential Template Plan... Test.plan P.S. If you want to get rid of the dashed outline you just do the same thing you did in your X12 template and place onto a unique layer using the invisible line style and turn off the cabinet fill. All doable in X13 same as before though.

What option was removed?

I believe it does work exactly as intended. I see no other way that would have made sense. And to say "neither work properly" is a bit of a fallacy. They both do what they were intended to do. They both just have their limitations as to what they can do. It is simply impossible to have rounding that is both always consistent and that always adds up across multiple segments and multiple strings. I think a better and more accurate statement would be: "It would actually be just about the best of both worlds if it worked the way I thought it was originally intended to work. Mick is correct in saying neither work properly ideally in all situations." I suspect (based on past discussions with you on the subject) that your understanding about how grid rounding was "intended" to work was just tainted early on by either poor wording in the manual or by a misunderstanding of what the writer intended to communicate. Either way, I assure you that its working just fine. Numbers are rounded to the nearest point on the rounding grid based on the rounding precision being used. You simply cannot have it both ways. In fact, the grid rounding is working so precisely and predictably that I could almost certainly tell you exactly what the dimension would be rounded to for any 2 given points in a plan without even using a dimension tool.

One thing you can do to speed up the process--assuming you are always using the same screen size to start with--is to figure out what the resize factor is and just get into the habit of quickly using Transform Replicate and along with the appropriate Resize Factor. You could similarly Resize using other methods/edit modes but you would need to figure out either the Resize Factor or drag distance to make any of those methods nice and quick.

There are several methods that work in X13 including those you already listed. The left side needs to have a 3/4" right stile though in all methods that I know of.

I got it to work from scratch. Heading out the door right now. Curious to see if you can figure it out on your own before I get back and tell you how I did it.

I seem to be able to make it in X13. Its pretty easily provable by the way. Just use the Match Properties tool to apply all setting from that X12 cabinet to an X13 cabinet. I don't believe you can affect any properties using the Match Properties tool that couldn't also be done through the dialog.

Ya, I personally think that should be reworded. It still has value outside legacy plans. Its rarely the best approach, but I think it still has its occasional applications for sure. One very quick example drawn and dimensioned to 1" accuracy... Notice how the rounding results for the diagonals are completely different for all 4 boxes depending on where they land on the rounding grid. We can always increase rounding precision which helps for many of these scenarios but the results can still be undesirable and a little misleading in many cases. If distance rounding were removed as an option, we would end up having to simply override the dimension text which would be even less desirable than using distance rounding in the first place IMO.

I believe the image size is controlled entirely by your screen size. If you want a smaller size by default then I believe the only options are to use a smaller screen or decrease your window size manually.

Are you suggesting that there should be another?

By the way, if you're using a metric template, you should have no reason for adding the extra text at all. The macro could simply be... %room.standard_area.round(2).to_s.sub(".", ",")% and Chief would automatically add the m².

Just to be clear, Chief only uses Grid Rounding if you have it set that way. You can always change your defaults to Distance Rounding if you prefer. I would rarely recommend using Distance Rounding though.

For the record, I would personally probably write a custom text macro for that situation instead of putting it all in a text box. I was mostly just trying to show a quick example. It works as written, but one problem with long chunks of text in room labels is that sometimes the shear length of the macro text and the resulting text box size will keep the text box from recognizing the room that you want it to and you end up having to reposition the text box. A minor but annoying little problem sometimes.

You can draw very precisely in Chief once you get used to using the proper workflows. Using the CAD Detail From View tool and Copy/Paste Hold Position like I mentioned above is a really big one. Using things like Point To Point Move, Center Object, the Align/Distribute tools, the Rotate/Resize About Point functionality, drawing with the proper Arc Creation Mode toggled, using the Enter Coordinates dialog, and adjusting the Dialog Number/Angle Style to a more precise format when necessary...to list just a few of many, are all things you can do to improve the accuracy of your drawings. It just comes down to using the right tools. If you're lining something up with your eye, I'd say 99 times out of 100 you just took a wrong turn.

Not all objects in Chief have snaps. As you've found for example, you can snap to a wall's interior and exterior surface and you can snap to the interior and exterior extents of the main layers but not to any other layers. For these layers and for other areas where Chief simply doesn't provide the desired snaps, I recommend you add a little extra step to your workflow: Use the CAD Detail From View tool and the Paste Hold Position tool to get the snaps you need. Create CAD Detail From View and then Copy/Paste Hold Position from that view back to your original view and you'll have precise snaps to work with. I think its also worth mentioning that Chief automatically generates some temporary CAD in cross sections that are called Cross Section Lines and that live on the Cross Section Lines layer. These lines can be snapped to, but they're only generated for parametric objects that you're actually cutting through. In other words, you can automatically get some of the snaps you need by simply using camera positioning in some cases.

If you're having problems with one or 2 rooms in a plan, this is another place where using text boxes instead of (or even in addition to) the auto labels is worth a look. Again, you can simply open up that one text box and adjust the rounding behavior if you wanted to... %room.name% %room.standard_area.to_sq_m.round(2).to_s.sub(".", ",")% m2

I would encourage you to always search for a balance with regard to using automated features and using manual options that will enhance your capabilities. Chief will automate a ton of things but with all that automation there are costs and limitations. You could shoehorn a lot into the automated features, but sometimes it just makes a lot more sense to stop futzing around with it and use a different method. Room labels for example...Yes, you can use the auto room label and place a macro in your Default Label, but then you're also stuck with a single text format for both the name and the area. Start adding more information to your room labels or try to start including room numbers and you quickly find that it leaves a lot to be desired. Creating text boxes with custom text macros and copying/pasting those is an extra step, but its FAR more flexible and very easy to make changes to individual room labels on the fly (think tings like removing information from rooms where its not important or doesn't fit very well).