Alaskan_Son

One of the easiest methods is to simply use a normal Fixture Symbol set to Inserts Into Wall and then adjust the Wall Cutout Polyline.

Ya, I hardly ever use partitions for much of anything. I pretty much always use actual cabinets.

To deal with the automatically generated CAD boxes and polylines covering the framing members, one thing you can do is just group select all of them and move them to the 26th drawing group.

This is is the method I generally recommend: Keep a notepad handy (a word processor document, text file, or spreadsheet will do as well if those work better for you) During your normal daily workflow, anytime you make a change that you think you want to make to your template, write it down. Periodically open your template plan, go through your list, and make the desired changes. This can be once a day, once a week, once a month, or quarterly. You just have to decide what works best for you. A few of the benefits are that: Its far more efficient. You can just focus on the one task at hand and not have to lose all the efficiency and productivity that you do by switching back and forth between your current task and adjusting your template. You're not making a change to your template that you later (sometimes that same day) realize wasn't such a great idea. You can more carefully consider whether each change is worth making or not. It helps avoid file bloat. I've seen more users over the years with settings, layers, layer sets, default sets, etc. that they have long since forgotten why the have. It can help you skip over unnecessary generations. Some of the changes we make when doing them one at a time end up affecting other recent changes. A lot of the time as you're going through your list you'll find that some changes can just be skipped entirely because they're made obsolete by another change on the list.

By the way at, this can be done now with some custom macros. Using a schedule is even possible but requires a relatively complex system. It’s pretty easy to add a Component to your default base cabinets and just run a quick Materials List though. Try this (assumes you’re using X13): Add an Accessory to your Default Base Cabinet, name it something like Total Base Cabinet Run, type = width into the Quantity field and set it to Apply Formula to Source Object. Now draw a Materials List Polyline that encompasses the entire area, set it to only report Accessories, and create a Layer Set Where only Base Cabinets are displayed. Place your materials list polyline onto a unique layer that’s easy to toggle on and off. Do all that in your template plan and then anytime you want to total your base cabinets simply turn the Materials List Polyline layer on, select the polyline, generate materials list, and then switch to the layer set where only base cabinets are displayed.

You can't. You just have to get into the habit of entering the "cm" along with the number, so instead of simply entering 1800 you would enter 1800 cm.

Funny. While I was reading through that other thread and attempting to help show that everything still worked in X13, I was wondering who would want to show all their doors and drawers just so they could display end panels. Anyway, I personally don’t typically care enough to show that particular detail in plan view. There are a whole handful of alternative methods and different object types you could use, but I think the easiest is probably to just stop fighting it make yourself a little CAD block to paste over those. We probably could have collectively just patched it with CAD 100 times in the time it’s taken to post and respond to this topic. I’ve just found that you can easily eat up far more time and energy trying to shoehorn things into using Chief’s automated tools than it would take to just do them manually. It’s all about finding that balance.

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.