Alaskan_Son

Ya, Chief tends to add these various Match Properties and Text Macro name:value pairs little by little and commonly only when we ask for them.

Freestyle group select and the Edit All Roof Planes tool are about the only options.

Weird. I had just quickly tested when I first responded with that advice and I thought I had it working by giving it some thickness. I just tried it again real quick and couldn't repeat. Odd. Either way, yes, adjusting the sample size definitely works, and yes, Chief is treating this scenario oddly. I'll let you know if I have a chance to play with it again and figure out what I did differently last time.

Looks to me like you should be asking your question over in the Home Designer forum... https://hometalk.chiefarchitect.com/

I posted an example already. My texture image is 4 times as big as the one you are using. Use that one instead and you can set the scale at 1x1 and it will be 4 times as small.

I don’t think anyone here was suggesting that you change your standards to fit the program. I know that I for one was only offering my personal advice from the perspective of somebody who has laid out thousands of walls as a framer and I only chimed in because the topic was already being discussed. I probably wouldn’t have said anything otherwise. Anyway, as others have already pointed out, dimensioning to the center of your walls is totally doable in Chief. Shouldn’t be a big deal at all. I did want to take a moment to re-visit the wall centerline dimensioning standard again though— this time completely in your defense. During my commute to work this morning I gave this subject some brutally honest consideration and it occurred to me that even in my own practices, centerline dimensions would have one major advantage that until now I had never considered or even heard mentioned...They allow for both verbally communicating and remembering a dimension without having to also communicate/remember which side of wall A and which side of wall B are being referenced. Only thing to communicate and remember is dimension and framing thickness. I can’t say that I’m planning on switching my drafting standards anytime soon because I have other reasons for marking edges as well, but I can finally see at least one completely logical reason a person might prefer centerline dimensions. Sorry for giving you grief.

You can still apply to a single face, the symbol just has to be thicker than zero if you want to scale down to under a single unit. Thicker than zero doesn't preclude the single face idea. Please note that I'm not saying I think the behavior is good, just telling you how its working. You can also increase your texture image to include a larger sample area...

What is this method you are talking about?

I got it now. It all started to make sense after Glenn pointed out that you were using child palettes.

The problem probably has something to do with the fact that your symbol is a zero inch thick single face. For whatever reason, Chief has a hard time dealing with that. Give it some thickness...even making it .001" thick...and see if that works. You have to model it that way from scratch though. You won't be able to increase the thickness of a zero inch thick object since there's nothing there to increase. P.S. You can delete the extra face after the fact or by exploding your solid before converting to a symbol. The object just needs to have some depth.

The same way as you would copy/paste files in almost any other environment: Select the item and either right click>copy or hit Control+C Navigate to the desired folder and either right click>paste or hit Control+V

Hyperbolize much? If only all disasters could be addressed by simply hitting the delete key

Old fashion material regions and manually editing framing or Symbol set to Inserts Into Wall along with its Wall Cutout Polyline.

Interesting. I haven’t used that child menu option in years. That could explain the difference. I’m away from my computer now...When you double click, does it actually open up Default Settings or does it open the Automatic Dimension Defaults too?

Whether its desirable or not is another story, but the way Chief currently works is that Chief's generic temp dimensions only show up if there are no other dimensions in the plan that are referencing the same thing. In your particular example you have placed all those other dimensions onto their various layers. Each dimension string that is being displayed has one segment or another that can indeed be used to resize or relocate the selected wall...

Hmmm.....I think you should check again. Your picture shows that your Default Settings dialog is open and that the Select Objects tool is activated.

Eric is correct. You have one single pollyline in the pile of goodies. Delete it or de-select it and you should be back in business.

Framers ultimately have to layout walls the same everywhere. In fact your own statement proves this... They're obviously marking wall edges meaning that at some point they had to add or subtract the thickness of the wall. Your assertion that the numbers are simply being communicated as edge to edge markings may be true but this can only happen after the aforementioned calculations are done for at least the first wall in the string. After that, problems can quickly and easily be multiplied, especially when wall thicknesses vary. Look at the following example. Notice how straight forward the center line dimensions look on the right and then compare them to the resulting edge to edge dimensions on the left. What you see on the left is what the framer has to arrive at onsite and the only way to get there is by doing some extra calculations. It seems you have again just proved that the crews ultimately need edge dimensions. You have however also skipped over the one scenario I can think if where wall centerlines make a lot more sense....when laying out anchor bolts. Anyway, I won't try to convince you anymore. I would encourage you to at least take a moment to honestly reassess though. I've seen this subject result in a heated conversation a few times but don't recall an instance where any carpenters were on the side of centerline dims. Those of us who have spent any real amount of time in the field very clearly understand the inherent problems...problems that exist no matter what region you're building in. I will say this for you though...if your carpenters have become accustomed to all those centerline dimensions then I could see the potential for error if/when you were to make the switch.

You'll definitely be able to do this. Chief is very customizable. I was only asking out of curiosity and to perhaps encourage you to consider whether your practices make as much sense as you think. If you're switching platforms and going through the process of learning a new software and setting up new templates and workflows, its about the most opportune time to reassess some of your standards. Not saying you're right or wrong, but just because you've done it for 100 years without any push back doesn't actually mean that its the best method or that it couldn't be improved.

Are you sure about that Steve? I can't get to my Automatic Exterior Dimension default by double clicking. Always had to go into Default Settings .

Okay. Then I don't believe the solutions above are really what you should be doing. You should really be setting your wall definitions to reflect the actual real world structure. If you don't have brick on the side walls then that layer should be removed from your new wall definition. Define your walls as they're actually being built...then, and only then (after your wall definitions are correct) should you start futzing around with fixing connections.

Curious. Have you actually conducted any kind of real world poll on this? I've heard a similar sentiment a few different times but I don't recall having ever heard it from a tradesperson...only from architects, designers, and heads of drafting departments. I would be genuinely surprised if you were to ask a few of your local framers and the majority said that they prefer center lines. I can think of no logical reason why they would want that. It just adds an error prone extra step for every contractor except maybe the foundation crew (which would typically have an error prone extra step either way).

Are you actually putting that pebble dash right over the top of brick?

I wasn't actually suggesting that manual entry is the most reliable. I was just saying that I think it might be a better method for this particular user based on the general approach and workflow they are using. The OP was placing an independent object (a text box in this case) on their layout page(s) to display the scale. This means that the scale is being reported completely irrespective of the actual views that it is representing. My view is that any scale macro being used should either be connected to and dependent on the actual view that it is representative of or that it should be entered manually. There are several methods a person could try to use but some are just bad or problematic practices in my opinion (and I am therefore you'll see that I have typed them up and then crossed them out)... Use the %scale% macro in layout. As was already discussed in the thread above, this simply doesn't work. The %scale% macro reports either the onscreen scale of the view it is in (when you're actually working in Chief) or the printed scale of the view it is in (when you print from Chief). When used in layout this macro is almost entirely useless because the view you are working in is a 1 to 1 scale. Use the %scale% macro in plan and in the same view you are sending to layout. This method is great and can be one of the most accurate and automated but can also require some pretty meticulous positioning of the text box in the plan view in order to get it to display where you want it on the layout page. The main thing here is that the macro is actually reporting the scale of the view that it is representing. Use the %scale% macro in plan but send the view to layout twice. This makes it a little easier to position the scale macro where you want it because you can simply crop the 2 views: one where the scale macro is not displayed, and one that only displays the scale macro. The problem with this method is that you have to make sure the 2 views are always using the same scale. If you were to adjust your scale after the fact, you would need to make sure to adjust both. Use the %box_scale% macro in the layout box label of your actual view and leave the label right there with it's layout box. This method is good as well but kinda limits what you can do with text formatting and means that you have to use the layout box label. This kinda sucks if you don't like to use layout box labels or if you are using them for something else. Use the %box_scale% macro in the layout box label of one of your views but drag the label over to your title block. This method is okay if your page only has the one view but it's kinda messy because you have to reposition the label if you move the layout box, and again, you have to use the label meaning you can't really use it for anything else. Use the %box_scale% macro in an independently placed layout box. This makes it easy to place in your title block independent of your actual views. Again though, you're forced to use layout box labels, but even if this isn't a problem to you, your layout box is no longer representative of any of your actual views. It's its own independent entity. This is a case where I believe it makes more sense to simply type the scale in manually. You get more control over the formatting by simply using a text box anyway. Use the %box_scale% macro in a text box and connect it to your layout box with a line/arrow. This is a decent method as well and is another case where your scale is going to accurately represent it's view when printed to scale; however you have to make sure the arrows stay connected and you have to jump through a few minor hoops to make the lines/arrows invisible (using line style or layer settings). This method always allows for an easy way to drag the scale text over to your title block. Again though, this can be a little weird and potentially inarticulate if you have multiple layout boxes on any given page. At the end of the day there are a few main points I would leave you with: The %scale% macro is the most accurate specifically because it will actually adjust to reported printed scale. If you print some 1/4 in =1 ft drawings at 1/2 Scale Check Plot then your scale will read 1/8 in =1 ft. %box_scale% is relatively accurate as well but will not adjust for printed scale. If you print some 1/4 in =1 ft drawings at 1/2 Scale Check Plot then your scale will still read 1/4 in =1 ft. Unless you are using the %scale% macro to report your Check Plot Scale (not something I've actually seen anyone do), then it really should only ever be used in PLAN. Any scale macros you use should really be getting their information from the actual views they are supposedly representing; either by being placed in those views or placed directly with those views. If the scale label or text box you're using is going to be positioned independently of the view that it's supposedly representing (typically in the title block), then I would suggest that manually typing is the most flexible and stable method and that in most cases will be equally as accurate anyway. If your construction documents are such that you are consistently including only one scale on each page, you consistently use the same scale, you want to include your scale in the title block, and you commonly print your plans at 2 different scales, then this is one scenario where you may consider using the %scale% macro in a totally independent plan view and then cropping that view and placing it in your title block. Repeat this for the appropriate pages where you're using different scales and the results will adjust to accurately represent printed scale whether your printing to scale or at 1/2 scale. This is really the only good reason I can personally think of to use any of the scale macros when they're placed independently of the views they're representing. Obviously there are a lot of approaches a person could take and you have to decide what works best for you and your workflow but those are my personal thoughts on the matter.

I'm curious, can you explain how Eric's advice was different from what George showed you 7 posts prior?