Alaskan_Son

Try attaching the plan and we may be able to help you.  It sounds like a hardware issue to me though.

Check your "All Off" layer set. There is likely a layer in that set that is on. They're called "All On" and "All Off", but if you're not careful you can inadvertently turn layers on in the All Off set and off in the All On set.

Sorry Larry, I was only viewing it in a very small window and missed that. Not sure what else to say. It works for me with no problem at all.

A quick video (sorry, I have no microphone setup so there's no sound)...

http://screencast.com/t/uDbuR2k2

Try turning off your angle snaps when you're setting those particular dimensions.

.....  the answer my friends is blowing in the wind.....  a beam can be a BEARING BEAM whereas a floor joist cannot.   Why is that?  I suppose it is not a big deal,  but why not. If I want to define a floor joist as bearing why can't I?  Is there a downside?

 

Are there anymore differences on the behaviors between the two?

 

Another difference would be the layer they would go on,  but again why can't a joist be bearing>

 

I'm sure you have a much deeper reason for asking than what it appears on the surface...at least I hope you do.  Joe put it best when he said..."Because its a joist..."

 

Its simply one of the many terms we use for communication purposes.  A joist by definition does what a joist does and a beam does what a beam does.  A 2x10 can be used as a beam, and a 4x12 can be used as a joist.  It all depends on the situation.  By calling it a beam (or a joist) you are stating what its purpose is.  Its kinda like asking what the difference between a stud and a post is, or even what the difference between a slab and a footer is.  Sure you can use a stud or group of studs as a post but a stud is not a post, and you could build a walkway with a 36" wide x 16" deep slab filled with rebar but that doesn't make it a footer. 

Try my suggestion in post 5 - I believe you'll find that this setting controls how the wall is measured while drawing.

 

Well waddya know.  You're 100% correct sir.  I've never really cared myself so never bothered to try and research it.  After your post above I opened up Chief and it appears my default plan is already set that way.  I could have sworn it wasn't like that before.  I wonder... did they change the OOB default settings sometime over the past year or 2?  Doesn't really matter I guess.  Good stuff to know.  Will likely save me a couple resizing steps from time to time. 

I could be wrong, but I think the OP referring to the way walls are DRAWN, not the way dimensions work. When drawing a wall in CA, if you draw an exterior wall and then draw perpendicular walls off each end, I believe the CENTER of the new walls start at the end of the previous wall. It's been a long time since I used AutoCAD, but as I remember it, the practice was to draw precisely as possible AS YOU GO and only adjust if necessary. In Chief the practice is to draw roughly and then adjust. I'd say the latter works much faster once you get used to it.

I think the biggest thing when learning Chief (especially when switching from another program) is to get used to Chief's way of doing things. In Chief, the standard practice and the way the program works best, is to draw first (general shape, layout, and/or placement), and then adjust dimensions.

You can also use Dropbox to share the plan file. 

Under default settings, you can also change the temporary dimension settings to something that works better for you. 

Me again with a newbie question. I am used to Autocad and Revit when it comes to dimensioning.

I find using the dimensions in Chief Architect quite difficult to impossible so I am assuming I am doing it wrong.

My biggest pet peeve is when I am drawing and I pick a wall to verify it's location CA will then show some temp dimensions. These dimensions are invariably to the wrong walls or on the wrong side of the wall, etc. I invariably have to grab my calculator to add or subtract wall thicknesses, or add dimensions because the dimensions shown are to a different wall, etc. Is there a way to cycle through dimensions?

Does this make any sense?

Place your own dimensions and use those instead. You can also turn off temporary dimensions.

I create my wall and electrical legends manually that are plan specific.

 

I do the same.  And it doesn't take but a few minutes.  For walls, I just draw a bunch of actual wall sections and then add the necessary text right beside them.  If you pretty consistently use the same few wall types, you can create a CAD detail from view, block the appropriate stuff and then add it to your library for future use. 

 

Automatic wall schedules would be a good one for the suggestion section though. 

Sounds like you're having bigger computer problems.

If you create a polyline solid in plan view, you can still cut a hole in it while in an elevation.  To do so:

-  Select the polyline solid and "Convert To Solid"

-  Build another polyline solid that passes through the area where you want the "window" (make sure its extends completely through the first solid that was created) and convert that one to a solid as well.

-  Select the first solid that was created, click on "Solid Subtraction" and then click on the 2nd solid that was created. 

Sneaky!

Might be covered in Mick's thread, but if your main building is very from off a 0,0 origin z-fighting can become pretty common. Try to select all and move closer to 0,0.

...Another problem with using a Cabinet as Michael outlined is that you would also need to make it Frameless so that the inside cabinet won't show if there's no Door(s) on the outside cabinet.  There is also the depth issue because you wouldn't want the "liner" to cover the Face Frame at top and bottom.  It's really just the box that would be "lined".

 

Very true.  I thought about one of those issues after my initial post.  The added steps of changing the liner to a frameless cabinet and dragging the front back an additional 11/16" should solve those problems for any face frame situations. 

 

To solve the visible inside cabinet issue, the difference in overall dimensions could be further reduced to 1/16" or even 1/32".  I think for most situations 1/8" would be fine and would limit the possibility of any z-fighting.  The 1/16" of exposed "liner" shouldn't be enough to cause any problems for 3D views, and the "liners" could be put on a different layer which could be turned off for any 2D details.

I think Jonathank's solution is the easiest but would do it a little differently myslef (plan attached per Mr. D Scott Hall's request).

 

1.  Build cabinet

2.  Copy/paste in place

3.  Open the copy and...

     a. Subtract 1/8" from width, depth, and height

     b. Set height off floor to 1/16" higher than it already was

     c. Uncheck "Include in schedule"

     d. Change door to an opening

     e. Change the number of shelves to zero 

     f.  suppress the label

     g.  change the cabinet material as desired

4. Center the modified copy on the main copy in plan view (in both directions)

 

 

Not sure why, but plan won't upload.  Keep getting "Error 302" so here's the Dropbox link...

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1cijltnv28e2pwe/Cabinet%20painting.plan?dl=0

Just ran a schedule. That just doesn't make any sense. The cabinet box height should be the overall height - countertop thickness. Also, the countertop thickness does not show in the schedule, even when using a custom counter top. Seems like this would be a very easy fix.

 

Graham

Agreed. 

...Can run a test to see, extend a custom counter top across three cabinets, then for the center cabinet increase the height of the cabinet DBX counter top height say 2" greater than the custom top. Does it project through? If so can one be a different material than the other. If so then it seems that they coexist...

 

Graham

 I think what you'll find is that the taller cabinet will simply push the countertop upward (may depend on bumping/pushing settings?).  The only time I believe countertops will coexist is when a custom top is overlapping an automatic top by less then about half of the cabinet width.

I don't use the schedule but doesn't Chief subtract off the countertop thickness to derive the actual box height?

 

Graham

No it doesn't.  Its a bit of an annoyance.

We can only help you if you don't attach the plan.  And whatever you do, don't give us any relevant information about which layer set and what item it was ;-)

 

Just a total stab in the dark here, but did you accidentally build whatever it was on the wrong floor?

...Your custom counter will still be correct as it will just cover over the underlying cabinet one.

 

Relatively minor detail, but just for the sake of clarity and proper understanding of how the program functions, a custom countertop doesn't actually "cover over" the automatically created cabinet countertop.  It replaces the original top entirely.  If you create a custom countertop on one cabinet and drag it to cover the next, once you reach about the halfway point of the adjacent cabinet, it's original countertop will be deleted.

For $33 its probably worth it to try one and see if it helps you. Although I will say i somewhat agree that SSA should include more services/etc. Right now I can't imagine what someone that already knows CA in-and-out would find useful about SSA.

Like Rod said...Priority technical support, upgrades to newest version, and bonus libraries (the latter 2 being my main reasons for keeping current).

Dirty mouse balls? Really?    

Hahahahahahaha!!!!