Alaskan_Son

It seems maybe I just read your original post too literally: We’ve had boolean operations for polyline solids for quite some time—just not full 3D boolean as you clarified in your followup post. We could even complete boolean operations while IN 3D but only with regard to the extrusion shape. There is a good reason for this by the way, and that is because the polyline-solid is in extruded polyline (CAD based object) and not a general solid shape...more on that in a moment. This is something we simply just had in X12. A few side notes too that are pretty important IMO. We can use use dissimilar primitive/CAD based objects in boolean operations in X13 which is what I think you were really talking about, but the behavior is less new than some might think. Really all that’s happening is that Chief is automatically converting them to solids instead of us doing so on purpose. In other words, it’s not a new capability, Chief just saved us a step. This comes at a notable cost though because as soon as you use dissimilar objects in boolean operations, the resulting object is a solid. I won’t go into all the various scenarios but while this may be fine for many situations, it isn’t always a good thing and actually introduces extra steps for many operations. For example... ...many times I don’t want them to retain their separate heights. I want a unified extrusion shape with a single height. In X13 this now requires extra steps. Bottom line is that there were some great improvements in X13 with regard to primitives (some of which haven’t even been mentioned in this thread), but boolean capabilities are hardly new...just different, and we definitely had the ability to edit in all views in X12.

I’ve studied and tested the new features as well as probably anyone and I do realize that. I’m just saying the specific capability Richard described isn’t new.

Chief did add some new solid capabilities in X13 but what you’re describing was another capability that we already had in X12. I’m thinking you must not have done much exploration for a couple versions.

When did you last upgrade? Like the fireplace tool deprecation, this is one that has been there for a little while now. You’re right though. It was a welcome addition.

I suggest you use a different approach altogether. It’s easy to do that type of thing by just masking the unwanted portion rather than deleting it. Just use a filled Polyline (background color fill and using the Invisible line style).

A number of ways, but here's a pretty easy one...Open an OOB template plan that has the desired default Pony Wall in it, draw a section of Glass Pony Wall, copy it, go back to your other plan, paste it, and then click the Set as Default tool.

You’re welcome sir.

Its not just for moving objects. In my post above I was actually referring to using the method to draw the walls...click to start, drag, hit tab, enter distance(s)/direction, hit Enter. Also, just a side note, but the tab entry method (using the Enter Coordinates dialog) can also be used to accurately move or resize an object to a specific length or distance without even know what that distance is. Consider the following example: Let's say you want dimension A to be 12'. You can simply drag point C so that it snaps to point B, hit Tab, hit the forward arrow, and enter -12' into the dialog.... Follow that by hitting the tab key and you’ll see how far you actually need to move Point C. Hit Enter and your desired dimension will be 12'...

Okay, then the next places I would look would be these: Your Current Active Dimension Defaults: Don't forget that your Temporary Dimensions get their rounding behaviors from your Active Dimension Defaults. Its possible that you're not changing dimensions that appear to be correct when in fact they should be changed because the displayed dimension value is rounded too far. In other words, if you want to see 14' and your dimensions are rounding to the nearest 1/2" then 13' 11-3/4" would report as 14' and look just fine. It would however add 1/4" to your compounding problem. Your General Wall Defaults>Resize About setting: This can be both the source and solution to some of these types of problems. Depending on how you're drawing your walls, toggling this setting can make accurate placement a lot easier and more intuitive. This setting also controls how walls get resized so if its set so that your walls are resizing in an unexpected way, it could also cause your dimensions to jump on you. For example, if you set your walls to resize about the Main Layer Inside during the initial drawing phase and then subsequently change your exterior wall type from 2x4 to 2x6, the overall footprint of your house would increase by 2" in every direction throwing all your dimensions off. Your Wall Direction: Wall layers can be reversed; either manually or automatically, and doing so can move your dimension ends. This is just something to be aware of because sometimes--particularly if you JUST placed the dimension recently--it can appear as if though your dimension is wrong when in fact its just measuring the other side of the wall. Your Wall Definitions: Your various wall layer thicknesses and "Dimension to" settings can play a big role here. This can be especially true if you are dimensioning to surfaces of walls with unusual layer thickness, when your walls have layer thicknesses that are not 1/32" increments, when you have multiple main layers, or when your layer thicknesses have a higher degree of accuracy than your dimensions are rounding. Also, just some added tips: I personally don't use Temporary Dimensions for initial modeling very often. They're a little too limiting and don't provide a good way for you to keep track of what you've already set or not set. Again, consider toggling the Resize About setting during your modeling process. This can make it a lot easier to draw walls like you designed them or like you measured them. Sometimes you may want it to be the Main Layer, sometimes you way want it to be the surface layer, or sometimes you may want it to be the center of the wall. You can use the Tab input method when drawing walls. This can be particularity useful and accurate when used in combination with the Resize About Setting. For your canary-in-the-coal-mine, you can consider starting with a polyline or even using the Input Point tool. You can then snap your walls to those points. Again though, that Resize About Setting can make a huge difference here. Your reference lines/points are only useful if they're snapped to the correct wall layers...and again, the wall layers are only useful of their thicknesses are correct and accounted for.

I believe X10 was actually the last version where we had the Fireplace tool in the Build menu. It was deprecated to its current status in X11 and it doesn't bother me personally that Chief did so.

I think the discrepancies are likely a result of your specific workflow in Chief. How are you drawing walls and inputting dimensions? I personally draw my walls and manually place dimensions as I go so that I know I'm dimensioning to the correct layer and that I've actually already set the wall(s) in question. Its also imperative that you select the most appropriate wall and use the most appropriate Move settings. Quick example where the structure should be 16'x14'. There are 4 different walls a person could select and 2 or 3 different Move settings for each. You could select the left or right wall and each of the 3 settings would change the dimension to 14' but one would move the top wall upward, one would move the bottom wall downward, and the other would move both of the aforementioned perpendicular walls.... That is NOT the wall I would recommend you select though. I would recommend selecting the wall that you actually want to MOVE not the wall you want to resize. Its much safer and more predictable this way... Also, as I said previously, I would typically just place the dimensions as I go so I wouldn't have 4 of them like I do in the example, I would likely just have 2. They represent walls that have been set. There are other good methods as well and you could even be using the tab input method, but bottom line is that there needs to be a methodical workflow for both drawing the walls and keeping track of which ones you've set and they need to be set in such a way that you're sure to be moving the walls as intended. It's easy to use the top example and set the dimension to 14' but also inadvertently move the wrong wall.

Use the object's label instead of adding text to the CAD Block is one way. In X13 labels gained quite a bit of functionality to help with this too.

I think the Break Wall tool is still completely relevant as a standalone tool. It allows for placing a break without having to actually select a wall. This can be particularly useful when we need to place multiple breaks in multiple walls.

Chop is correct. The 2 have never been linked. There are other methods of dealing with this stuff using custom text macros, but to simply use the built in system I think it’s typically best to enter that information in layout instead of plan since it’s usually being USED in layout and not in the plan file.

No. Cross sections/elevations have some quirky behaviors in both X11 and X12. The controls and behaviors are just a little bit different is all. Cross Section/Elevation cameras sent to layout always seem to reference the layer set they were originally sent with though unless you either change the layer set at the layout box level using the Layout Box Layers tool OR if you click YES when you get the little Update View to Layout pop-up. The layout box DOES however seem to remember the layer on/off settings temporarily under certain circumstances.

Are you still using X11 as your signature shows?

You should be able to simply use $sf.join("\n") in place of puts

It just needs a screen redraw. Like I mentioned in one of your other threads....

You can avoid this problem by simply creating a unique Saved Plan View where all other relevant floors are displayed as Reference Floors. Place your area tabulation macro in that view and you won't need to toggle through floors. As a side note, I should warn you that this particular approach you're talking about can work just fine but only as long as you are very careful to follow your own rules. For example, if you add a second floor you'll have to adjust your macro definition. If you add a third floor you'll have to adjust your macro definition. If you remove a floor you'll have to adjust your macro definition. If you break the room giving your current floor no area, your tabulation macro will still display the old value even though the area should be zero. If any of your floors has multiple independent floor areas your tabulation macro will only use the most recently defined. If you decide you want to display deck areas or garage areas, your coding requirements just got a lot more complicated, and again...you have to redefine your macros. Anyway, you can get all sorts of areas automatically tabulated using the same general approach you've spelled out....all using actual room information and no polylines. BUT BUT BUT, the more advanced your system, the more complex the macros are to write, and the more you have to make sure you're following all the rules as defined by your specific system. This is what leads most of us to just use polylines. They're far more easily customizable, super flexible, and don't require nearly as much coding complexity making them really easy for almost anyone to learn how to use. Yes you have to adjust the polylines with any changes to the plan but using the other alternatives you're really just shifting the maintenance from the polyline shapes themselves to the aforementioned macros and specific operational procedures. At least with polylines you can get some quick and easy visual feedback so you know exactly where your various areas are coming from.

Some of us like to avoid having to get our subs and suppliers to do takeoffs every time we want a rough estimate. It adds up to an astronomical number of man hours, adds extra steps, adds to the timeline, introduces an increased chance for miscommunication, etc. In at least the early phases it can be far more efficient to tabulate all those quantities ourselves.

That text encapsulated with percentage signs IS a macro.

Setting proper pattern match and efficient material usage aside for a moment, here are my quick pieces of advice: Yes, you can use a Runner but that has some notable issues. First off, it doesn't give you a proper total in the material list. To get usable information, you would have to customize your Component information for each and every set of stairs you build. And even then, this method won't work for winders, flares, starter treads, or other non continuous width stair designs where you want carpet on the whole step. To get a more accurate result that doesn't need to be customized every time, you can use the steps Collection. This method requires some pretty custom coding to parse and combine the information, but is far more accurate and can be added to the stair Components in your Defaults.

I do. I was just trying to figure out more specifically what you were hoping to accomplish. You could have been talking about finding where you defined it, finding where you have displayed the value, finding the actual vale itslef, etc. etc. If you're just looking for where the text has been used you should be able to simply use the Find/Replace Text tool. Just make sure under Macro Options that its set to Include All and don't include the leading space before the text like you did above...

What do you mean by “find”. Are you trying to remember where you put the text?