Alaskan_Son

You're welcome. I just assumed the percentage signs went without saying if you were putting it directly into a label. Just as a quick side note, but beware that your macro as written will always only return the information for your second wall layer. If you add another exterior layer, or another main layer above the concrete, you may get undesirable/incorrect data.

upper_layers[1].material_data.formatted_size

You have to add it to your toolbar manually or assign a hotkey to it. Its been deprecated but not yet removed entirely.

I would personally probably just do that with 2 custom landings for the bottom treads, a normal set of stairs for the straight section, either a 3D molding polyline or a manipulated symbol for the top rail, and multi-copied balusters. I might do a portion of the balusters using railing settings, but I kinda doubt it.

Open your Cabinet Defaults one at a time, click on the Components tab, and Delete every component except the cabinet itself. This should affect all new cabinets that you draw. For existing cabinets or cabinets modified after placing them, you'll have to open the objects and make those changes after the fact.

Its being caused by the Foundation Wall setting.

There's no hornet's nest. It's just that we're trying to communicate thoughts and ideas here and the words we use are important. If we can't build off a common foundation then we can't communicate clearly. As I pointed out earlier, you could have been referring to any number things: An actual icon... A 2D Plan Symbol (CAD Block)... A Plant Image... a 3D Plant Symbol Or even a Material...

If you're already familiar with AutoCAD, why not just lease it for a few months, or better yet, use one of the many AutoCAD clones out there like Draftsight ($200 for a year). I just think its hard to justify learning a whole new software for a one-off project like that. If you had no other software experience that would be one thing, but I would think that sticking with what you know would be more efficient.

It keeps the Pattern and Texture in sync from the time the box is checked. Meaning that they are both adjusted in the same way from that point forward. If there is a 2" offset discrepancy from the start then there will always be a 2" discrepancy. The key is to make sure the pattern and texture are in alignment before you check that box.

It happens with tons of things that have their own layer controls but are essentially child objects: Pads/piers (parent object = wall) Windows (parent object = wall) Doors (parent object = wall) Wall hatching (parent object = wall) Hole in polyline solid (parent object = polyline solid) Labels (parent object = any object with a label) Items assigned to Distribution Paths and Regions (parent object = distribution path/region) Also things that are a child object whose layers we can't specify like: Cabinet fixtures and appliances (parent object = cabinet) Cabinet countertops (parent object = cabinet) Opening Indicators (parent object = cabinet doors, windows, or doors) Roof baselines (parent object = roof plane) Footing Step Markers (parent object = footing) ....and the lists could each probably go on. And just like Footing Step Markers there are a whole slew of other special layers like: Foundation layer (controls the 3D display of everything on Floor 0 Walls, Main Layer Only (actually turns off all wall layers except the main layer) Ceiling Break Lines (displays information that doesn't actually even exist as an object in the plan) Rooms, Ceiling Surfaces, and Floor Surfaces (controls the display of specific objects whose layer assignments you have no control over) Terrain Primary/Secondary Contours (informative only) Roofs, Overhang Area (another one that is informative only and isn't actually an object in the plan) Patterns, 3D Views (a redundant pattern toggle) And then there are things that have an additional tier of Display Options like: CAD Block Architectural Blocks Or objects on a specific layer that display any and all other objects like: Layout Boxes (a viewport) Plan Footprints (kinda like a layout box....but also very much not) And there there are other misc. things like: Slab Footing Walls that display one way until their room is enclosed at which point the display changes so that the wall becomes invisible. Toggling the wall's layer off changes nothing because the visible elements are on the Slab and Footing layers....neither of which can be selected or edited. Invisible, Attic, Railing, and No Locate Wall settings that will move an object to a different layer

Okay, that's cool. If you're not interested in trying to use some common terms that we all understand to promote clear communication or even willing to help clarify by answering a simple question then I'll leave you alone. Best of luck to you.

Okay... I believe that usage to be incorrect. Regardless, I still don't know what you're looking for. Perhaps you could pick one of the 3 options I mentioned? If none of those fit the bill, maybe you could clarify further.

For future reference, the pictures on the little buttons in your toolbar are icons. We have all sorts of objects in the library. We have Materials, CAD Blocks, Fill Styles, Text Boxes, Moldings, Style Pallets, Notes, various 3D Symbols, Architectural Blocks, etc. We do not however have icons in the library. When it comes to plants, there are at least 3 things you might be referring to... A 2D Block for plan views A 3D Plant Symbol A Plant Image

What pray tell is a "library icon"

Icon?

This just looks like a bug to me. I can reproduce the problem under just the right circumstances, but only using the arrow keys (which I personally never use in Chief). All other methods seem to work just fine.

You have a little zero length line sitting off to the side there.

Its the Inset that Chief doesn't like. Change the Inset to zero and it works. I would recommend you report this to Chief as unexpected and undesirable behavior. In the meantime you may end up needing to do that with multiple walls or a custom window symbol to get the inset look you're after.

You have me curious, especially after reading your suggestion... 1. If you’re using AutoCAD and it’s super easy in AutoCAD for you, can you possibly just export from Chief to AutoCAD and then export point data from AutoCAD. There’s nothing wrong with using supplemental software if it gets the job done quicker and easier. 2. How are you placing your elevation points in Chief? One of the main challenges is actually that Chief doesn’t supply us with a tool intended to measure point data in the first place. There are workarounds using available methods, but nothing specifically designed for the purpose. We can DEFINE elevation with points, but that’s really a different thing. If you’re defining points, my suggestion would be to just copy and paste your defining data into a table as you’re defining it instead of trying to compile and export it after the fact.

That was a $#!++¥ thing to say Alan.

By the way, one thing I commonly do is GROUP select the object if it's not behaving as desired during a Move or Rotate operation.

I was only able to take a quick look, but for now I think your best bet might just be to Display Wall Widths and then either Suppress those dimensions, mask them, or drag them out of the view.

There isn't one. Are you certain you need it for what you're doing anyway? Its not always necessary that the Z data be imported into your Total Station. I guess it depends on what you're doing with it though. P.S. I do have a method for automating the Z data output as well.

I don't personally think this is a downside at all. I can't speak to Joe's system specifically, but I recommend a polyline based system to most users as well. I've developed and utilized various hash, array, note, and schedule based methods over the years to compile and parse data for various purposes and although they work for some things just fine, they always seem to fall notably short when it comes to robust and customizable area analysis. Polylines obviously have to be managed manually, but they have some major benefits that can't really be replicated with any other method I've seen: They're exceedingly easy to customize in order to measure areas using whatever calculation method a person wishes (center of wall, exterior surface, exterior main layer, interior main layer, interior surface, etc.) They're exceedingly easy to customize in order to combine areas, exclude areas, or measure areas that otherwise have no usable model data (part of a stairwell, both a dining room and kitchen combined, a portion of the driveway, a bathroom combined with its shower, a birdseye footprint of the home, overhang areas, under roof area of a specific deck, area encroaching a ROW, etc.) They can easily and very naturally be used in combination with model objects that are already polyline based objects (roof planes, driveways, terrains, slabs, countertops, etc.) They lend themselves to very easy tabulation customization. Users can very easily break out, combine, re-order, and cross reference anything using standard or rich text boxes with each and every line formatted as desired...new decks, old decks, wood framed decks, covered deck areas, uncovered deck areas, demoed areas, carpeted areas, tiled areas, common areas, living areas, MIL suite area, combined closet areas, existing vs. new vs. addition vs. remodel, permeable areas, lot coverage, buildable area, sloped areas, shaded areas, etc. And any given line can be indented, underlined, bold, differing fonts and text sizes, etc. Its all fluid. They also require very little in the way of macro know how. Starting in X12, a person doesn't even need to open up Text Macro Management to use a simple polyline based area analysis system. Using polylines seems to be looked down on because they're not fully automatic and tied to the model, but the benefits FAR outweigh the minor downside of having to manually adjust IMO.

Bug. Please send in a report.