Alaskan_Son

I sense that it’s less of a circumstantial thing and more of a personal preference. Some people just prefer the label to rotate with the object.

This statement raises some red flags to me. Assuming you decide to go forward with using containers, I would strongly recommend you change course with your preliminary modeling plans. You can't just stack and reposition the 3D room once you model it once. It doesn't quite work that way. Instead, I would recommend just starting with a symbol, solid, or architectural block and then copy/reposition that as necessary. Once you have a rough idea of what you're doing design wise, then you can model walls, windows, doors, roof planes, etc. around those objects. I would personally very seriously consider just making myself a primitive solid shaped exactly like the shipping container. Copy, paste, and reposition that around as necessary. Then, model around that, aligning walls, windows, doors, floors, ceilings, etc. to those solids using boolean operations as you go for all cutouts. This will help keep things as accurate as possible. As you're modeling you'll be forced to consider the actual container structure, and all the cuts you'll be making.

For an object like that, I would abandon the PNG idea and model in 3D for sure. I offer custom modeling as one of my support services, but you can have this first one on the house. Just resize and reposition as necessary... Mobil sign.calibz

I don't think that's what the OP is talking about either. As Rene explained, I think he was talking about this (from X13)...

No. I was talking about these 2 walls that were causing your problem at the exterior corners... You could even change them to the Siding-4 wall type for that matter. There are several wall types you could use actually. It's the thicker (and unnecessary IMO) exterior layers that's causing the undesirable automatic intersection issues.

By and to the way, some of our in house processes require flattening with a professional grade PDF editor and it’s something I do all the time. The reason we do it actually has nothing to do with security or changing text to images though. It’s so that annotations become a part of the document itself as opposed to a separate editable annotation entity and so that they appear the same regardless of what device they’re opened on. Text is still text, vectors are still vectors, and images are still images.

Ya, even the court document Mick posted above contains instructions that will still result in a document with text entities that can be edited with any good PDF editor. Shoot, I can even edit the text if a PDF was converted to an image for that matter. It just takes a little bit longer.

Ya, that’s really a different thing. That’s the point of my first post. Standard flattening is one thing. It sounds like some jurisdictions might be looking for a step further though. The results can look and print pretty crappy when everything is converted to an image though.

Pretty sure almost (if not) every PDF editor leaves text as text during the flattening process.

“Flattened” typically just means all the “smart” stuff has been removed (form fields, annotations, links, layers, etc.). Most good PDF editors can quickly flatten any PDF but I don’t know that any of them would make any difference to PDFs produced by Chief since there’s really nothing to flatten.

I was thinking the same thing as you. Chief produces a flattened PDF out of the box. Maybe some jurisdictions use “flattened” to mean a single OBJECT page as in images only (no vectors/text).

In this particular instance, you could also make those little knee walls Invisible, Partition Walls, or Pony Walls.

I know why you put it there. I'm just saying it wasn't necessary. Just adjust the floor heights instead of trying to adjust the ceiling below. Also, just FYI, if you upgrade to X13 you could simply adjust the ceiling height below even if your floor heights above are different.

I’m not sure I’m following what the problem is, but it seems to me like all you need to do is lower the 2 floors. The air gap seems entirely unnecessary. What am I missing?

You're not missing anything. It's a capability some of us have requested. Please consider sending in a request to Chief as well.

Okay, ya, that's not how it works. It sounds like you're referring to the Replace Molding icon. That tool will only replace the molding if there is already a molding to replace. You need to actually open the Countertop, click on the Moldings tab, and then assign a molding.

I don't believe I've ever actually used the tool for that purpose. That's a good idea. I can confirm though. It works in X12 but not X13.

How are you attempting to apply them to your countertops?

In X13 you can control this at the Default level.

Not exactly true. In X13 you can edit the material name in the individual framing objects' Components panel and you can also use Structural Member Reporting to control the material name for anything set to Report Actual Lengths.

I see. I couldn't make sense of what David was saying. I get it now. I can't reproduce, but I get it. I never actually create new folders by right clicking, so that may be one of the reasons I never see it. I right click for a lot of things, but for whatever reason I always click the New Folder button when creating new folders.

Huh?

Around here DF (Doug Fir) and HF (Hem Fir) are the most common. SPF (Spruce Pine Fir) is a premium product and is probably the 2nd most common. 1x framing material is pretty much always Common Pine.

Are you talking about the Material Name? In the X13 templates, I believe the material is just Fir Framing. The OC references have all been removed.

Actually, there IS a pretty easy way. When I don't know what layer is controlling any given object in Plan View, one of the things I'll do sometimes is just create a CAD Detail From View. Select the line in that view and inspect its layer.