Alaskan_Son

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?

You can do this with Box Construction>Cabinet Corner Treatment>Clipped. Just set the appropriate corner width. One little downside though is that you need a cabinet on the opposite side as well to stop that corner from clipping. It cab be a very small cabinet and you can put it on its own layer and turn the layer off, but it needs to be there.

I don't know, but it just looks to me like someone is trying to set up a file sharing group with you. Kinda like a group folder in Dropbox but for emails maybe? I'm guessing its one of your clients or vendors.

OK, that explains it. Depending on how you look at it you are either using the wrong macro in the right place, the right macro in the wrong place, or perhaps the wrong macro in the wrong place. Based on what it seems like you’re doing I would recommend just typing your scale in manually.

What macro are you using, and is that an actual layout box or just a text box? If it IS a layout box with that scale macro in it, select the layout box and see what its scale is set to.

Board Stretcher? I think DeWalt might even be coming out with a cordless model here soon.

Ever have trouble losing the Extension Snaps/Snap Anchors that you really need and instead you keep picking up on others that you don't want? Here are a few power tips to help highlight some of Chief's handy dandy little tools that I think probably get overlooked or forgotten by the vast majority of us...'specially those of us what don't read the 'structions... We have a lot of special snap capabilities to control how snaps behave, but I specifically felt like offering some unsolicited pointers on-the-house regarding 4 of them: Edit>Preferences>Edit>Snap Properties>Options>Objects in History - This number controls how many Extension Line Anchors Chief will remember at a time. By default I believe this is set to 2 but it can be set to anything between 1 and 20. If you up the number to 20 you will probably never lose the Anchor you really want but you'll also have a whole bunch more of those extension snaps jumping out on you, so picking up on the one(s) you want might take a little extra effort. The "S" key - Holding down the "S" key temporarily overrides Object Snaps meaning you can stop Chief from setting any new Anchors while mousing around your plan. For example, you can set an Anchor at Point A, hold down the "S" key, drag your pointer through your minefield of potential anchors, release the "S" key, and then set an Anchor at Point B...and hold down the "S" key again if necessary while you wade back through the minefield again in order to find the intersection of those 2 Extension Snaps. The "1" key - Pressing 1 clears your entire Snap Anchor history (all 1-20 of them). We can use this to quickly clear the slate and start fresh anytime we mess up. The Control key - Okay this one seems a bit obvious but I think its easy to overlook some things about this one as well. The Control Key overrides all Snap behaviors including Bumping/Pushing, Angle Snaps, and Orthogonal Movement. I think most of us use this pretty often, but it can be overlooked as a handy way to allow a temporary override of these 3 items in particular. Holding down the Control key can allow us to drag an object closer to where we want it before releasing the Control key and then taking advantage of Snaps again.

Go into Tools>Toolbars and Hotkeys>Customize Hotkeys, search for "Spin" and you should find the Start Camera Spin tool. Assign a hotkey if one isn't already assigned. You can then simply hit this key to start the camera spinning. The spin speed can be controlled by opening your camera specification dialog and adjusting the Incremental Rotate Angle...the smaller the angle, the slower the spin. Note that the spin speed will only adjust the next time you start the spin (spin speed will not change if you change number after you have already started the spin). You can also simply initiate the spin using your mouse by letting go of the mouse button while actively rotating the camera (done with a sort of flick of the wrist), but the spin speed is extremely difficult to control that way.

I don't believe you're missing anything. As far as I know, those settings don't affect anything unless you specifically place an object on that layer.

In my opinion? There isn't one. You can use all sorts of tricks to coerce Chief into modeling any number of non-standard roofs automatically, but I feel like it's easy to invest more time and expertise in doing so than it would have taken to simply model it manually. My suggestion to you is to learn and master the manual roof modeling tools. I think you'll find that once you've learned the tools, you'll have no qualms about simply turning auto off and manually modeling just about any roof you can think of. From the looks of it, that scenario would take about 30 seconds to accomplish by simply turning auto off and manually adjusting. Heck, I bet the whole roof would only take 5 minutes.