Alaskan_Son

See attached screenshot. Hopefully this works for you.

Can you elaborate on what you're looking to accomplish? There is no way to rotate a window that I know of but there may be other ways to reach your desired outcome.

It looks like a lot of that is in the 3D warehouse... https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/search.html?q=Thermador&backendClass=entity

Les, if you properly adjust BOTH the texture (standard view) and pattern (vector view) for the copied material you should get what you're after.

You bet. Glad I could help : )

You should move this to the General Q&A section. Attaching a plan as well would help you get a much quicker and more acurate answer.

There might be a better way, but the key combo Control/Shift/Tab followed by Enter does the trick.

Hitting tab while dragging an object is an absolutely fantastic function and works wonderfully. Like Scott, I also do not see your point (or problem). A little clarification maybe?

Joe, You can use the control key to insert objects into other objects (cabinets into cabinets, symbols into cabinets, symbols into other symbols, symbols into walls, etc.) which solves some of the issues you bring up. The problems that could arise with adjusting the origins to match have to do with the fact that in order to do what you want, you will essentially have a "place holder" for your symbol that is offset from the 2D AND 3D representations. That place holder would stop placement of other objects (without using the control button override), will screw up snapping (which would use the place holder and not your 2D OR 3D representations) would make it difficult and annoying to select nearby objects that overlap into its territory, would make dimensioning to your symbol annoying (you would likely have to just use temporary points)...the list goes on. I have no problem with your suggested solution (so long as its offered only as an option and not as the default), however I don't believe its actually the real solution, just a sloppy workaround. What we have now, you DO see exactly the same in plan view as in 3D view UNLESS you adjust the origin (which works exactly as designed and SHOULD cause the 2 representations to be different). What you suggest is just a way to override existing placement limits but causes a whole list of other issues.

My conclusions are: 1. Some additional bounding box options are definitely a good idea (perhaps an adjustable bounding box origin). 2. Window symbols just need to allow for a custom window to actually be inserted into the wall. Simple as that. No origin adjustments necessary. Currently they only allow mounting TO the wall (essentially a window covering) which cuts an opening of the same size. You only get the illusion of inserting into the wall by offsetting the origin of the symbol. 3. The added option of aligning the CAD block origin with the 3D origin would be okay, but not a real solution in my opinion. Adjusting the origin of both the 2D and 3D representations of a symbol adds a whole plethora of other issues and doesn't really solve anything. I suggest that anything you can't solve by holding down the control button needs to fixed another way and that if you adjust both origins to match you will end up with issues placing measurements, centering objects, point to point move (any kind of accurate moving for that matter), placing other objects in the adjacent areas, selecting objects, etc.

I'll have to respectfully disagree Joe. If you could in fact insert the symbol into the wall like you want, the origins would be a moot point. I believe that the only reason to do what you are saying under ANY circumstance is when an object will not go where you want it to go because of a software limitation (inserting an item where it is not permitted to be inserted). I hold that the origin settings work exactly as they should and that you're looking to fix a problem with the wrong solution.

You know...I've thought this through quite a bit and played around with all the scenarios mentioned. I think the problem you are trying to solve really has nothing to do with the symbol origin at all but rather with limitations of window symbols. Having the origins of both the 3D and CAD representations match will mathematically put you back at square one and therefore would be of no use. What you are really looking for is for the ability to insert a user defined symbol into a wall (right now all we can do is attach TO the wall). Until Chief allows us to do this, I think the only real solution is a CAD patch. Recessed Bookcase for Scott.zip

On second thought...I'm pretty sure I'm not missing anything. I was thinking about it and realized I change the origin for other reasons as well (when I don't want the 2D and 3D representations to match). In particular, I use it for furniture...especially chairs and stools...I like my seating to be all lined up, square, and uniform I plan view, but I like it to be a little more random and realistic in 3D which is why I adjust the origin and why I think it is working exactly as it should.

Please forgive me if I'm missing something, but isn't the whole point of adjusting the origin to be able to do exactly what you're describing? I've always used it to adjust for differences in symbols that do not display properly...when the origin does not match the 2D representation. I think it is working exactly as it was designed to work. Otherwise, what would you expect adjusting the origin to do?? Am I missing something?

You really need to use bump maps and ideally a different rendering program to get realistic grass.

Something just occurred to me while reading your post... It seems almost ridiculous that you would have to explain the need for posting pictures (or a plan) to people who are only here because they are using Chief for just that...TO DRAW PLANS...pictures and visual representations for the sole purpose of illustrating something. Someone drawing plans is the last person who should need to be told why words aren't enough.

I've had problems with this forever. Seems to be no easy answer. If I remember correctly, point to point dimensions seem to work somewhat.

I don't want to sound disrespectful, but I think you guys are making a much bigger deal out of the whole "reputation point" thing than you should be, and Its actually your joking about it that's likely gonna screw it up. Leave it alone and I think it will do exactly whats its designed to do...encourage helpful responses and discourage unhelpful ones. If you look at the list of posters (until the recent Reputation Point Games perhaps) you will quickly see that those with the highest reputation points are among (arguably) the most helpful and knowledgeable posters. Its just another tool that may or may not be useful to you. No need to rip it though. Regarding the idea of getting rid of negative points...Without negative points, the system wouldn't work quite as well and there would be no "check" in place. By limiting negative votes to one a day, it should work just fine. If you want to push me over and take my lunch money for being a nerd...go ahead (at least try), but I like the reputation point idea. Its a better gauge than simply how many posts a person has. Think of it this way, how do you filter through advice you get on a day to day basis in general...what do you use as a gauge?? -Experience? -Referrals? -Reputation? Being able to see a post count as well as a person's "reputation" sort of helps replace those things in an online forum situation. Granted its not perfect, but its a good tool in my opinion.

Hahahaha. That was a good one : )

I have no problems.

I think the truth is a lot of people buy these programs thinking it will do all the work for them magically making them an overnight plan producer. When they see what programs like Revit and Archicad offer in the way of "features", they think those programs can automagically do the work for them. It's simply just not true. All these programs do is make the work a little easier. If you can't draw plans without a program you won't be able to draw plans with one either (basic 3D renderings maybe, but not plans). And if you can't draw code compliant plans easily with Chief, MEP tools or any other "code compliant" tools won't be able to help you. I would venture to say if you can't draw those things up with Chief, you probably would have an even more difficult time with Revit (or any other program offering the tools to "meet code requirements".

I know what designers and architect need, and I can tell you almost nobody needs the so called "code compliance" tools the OP brought up. CA's lack of said tools doesn't make it a "homeowner" program. I think some people are just looking for a program that does all the thinking and design for them. As Perry suggested, if those things are needed have an engineer draw them up. Fact is, next to zero jurisdictions would accept those drawings from anyone else anyway. Im just growing sick of a system in which NOTHING is specialized or really good at anything anymore. When something is exceptional at what it does, along comes someone that wants to make that thing good at everything. People, tools, programs, businesses, and governments are becoming "jacks of all trades and masters of none". Let Chief remain a master of one and perfect what it already has before adding currently UNNECESSARY "improvements". I've said it before, and I'll say it again... There are enough Chief users who also have copies of programs that do exactly what you're looking for and they STILL choose to use Chief. Why?? Because its the perfect tool for the job.

That goes without saying. I for one want to make my dissenting opinion heard as well though so CA realizes there are those don't necessarily need or want the suggested features or "improvements".

If I suggest an idea that others think is bad, then I should hope they would fight it. You've pointed to some critical flaws in our current society..."Don't fight for anything"..."Don't offend anyone"..."We can all have everything we want."..."There will be no unintended consequences."...and "It of course won't cost anything."

I have a really hard time trying to get behind any suggestions like these. I would venture to guess that Chief Architect boasts perhaps the fastest plan producing designers and architects there are, and they don't have or need Revit's MEP tools (and I'm talking about guys who produce plans for some of the most stringent code requirements in the known universe...you guys know who your are). To say some of those tools might be nice is one thing, to say we need them is quite another. I don't need them, and I really don't want a program as monstrous and bogged down as Revit. Chief is absolutely a fantastic program. I'll take improvements to its simplistic design before I'd request "code compliance tools".