Alaskan_Son

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.

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

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.

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

Agreed.

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.

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?

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.

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

Hahahahahahaha!!!!

Might not be a perfect solution, but you can change your wall definition to make the drywall layer "No material", use wall material region tool to apply a new 1/2" drywall layer, drag all your outside corners back 1/2" or 5/8" (depending on your drywall thickness), build a slab, polyline solid or whatever tool you want to create the radius corner and then copy and paste that to all your outside corners. Here's a crappy video with no sound... http://screencast.com/t/5WNeemgZ5gI

One thing I've had problems with is putting the wireless receiver too far from the mouse. They definitely seem to work better if you can use a USB port that's closer to the mouse. I have some right on the front of my computer that I use for that purpose. You might also want to try changing out the batteries if you haven't already.

Are you talking about a mulled bay window that hangs on the wall or a bay with windows in it (as Chief defines them)?

Right click on User Catalog>New>Material>Texture tab>Texture Source Of course you'll have to name the new material and adjust the other settings accordingly but that's where I would go to start.

Like I said before, I don't think I can convince you otherwise, I'm only responding for the sake of anyone else who might be reading this who may be influenced. You've ignored a few of the most basic and most substantial points. You're referring to the 70's and onward when the problems I'm referring to were already well begun, and you and I both know that building a 600 square foot house can easily cost twice as much per square foot as a 2,400 square foot house of the same basic quality and construction so saying the cost per square foot has stayed around the same is highly deceptive and misleading. And with regard to the mandatory square footage increases I alluded to (and these are just a few off the top of my head most of which I have first hand experience with)... Toilet clearances: We've had at least a couple jobs in recent memory where it was impossible to legally put a toilet where it previously was. The only answer...make the bathroom bigger...increase square footage. Door openings and hallway clearances: Increase a hallway width from say 30" to 36"...extra square footage. Stairwells: Increase width from 30" to 36"...extra square footage. Increase tread depth from 8'' to 10" extra square footage. Landing requirements...extra square footage. Headroom requirements (cut out of floor space above)...extra square footage. Decrease riser height (adds steps)...extra square footage. Egress requirements: Harder to quantify, but if you've ever designed a smaller house you have to understand how every little inch can count. A few inches here or there can require a total layout change (and usually the resulting additional square footage, and the necessity to put every bedroom on an exterior wall and leave room for a door that meets code opening requirements as well as a closet...results in extra square footage. I can't even begin to count how many times I've had to tell a client "We can't put a door there", "That toilet won't fit there", "The shower door would be too small", "We can't make these stairs meet code without a total remodel or adding on to this back wall", "This hallway won't be wide enough", "We can't make a legal set of stairs fit there", "The hearth is required to come out further than that", "A bedroom can't go there"..."We can't put the furnace there"...The list could go on. Code has ABSOLUTELY and without question increased the size of homes. And that's just square footage. If you want to talk about prices aside from square footage and code related cost increases...you're right, we do have cheaper materials now. What do you think that means about the relative square footage prices of yesteryear? I can't see how you even try to argue most of this...I'd bet you can find a way to twist the cost of the code requirement this thread is all about? Adding drywall...added cost. Period. Bigger houses with cheaper material should cost MUCH less per square foot, but relative price has only increased. I'd venture to guess a house of the same usable size and quality of your average 1,000 square foot house from the 20's built to today's codes would cost $600 per square foot to build if you had to use their materials. Conversely, if they had our cheaper materials and retained their lack of code, I'd bet the great depression would have been a moderate depression and people would have had bigger houses to tough it out in.

First off, I'm not talking about 40 years ago which was already well on its way to way we are now, I was talking about 90 years ago before we headed into this downward spiral. Secondly, you're right, houses are bigger, however you should well know that as houses become smaller (which they were 40, 50, 60, 100 years ago) price per square foot goes up dramatically. Thirdly...wider hallways, bigger stairwells, larger rooms, higher and wider door openings, wider toilet clearances, higher ceilings, egress requirements, clearance from combustibles, the list goes on...are all mandatory square footage increases whether someone wants it or not.