Alaskan_Son

You could also convert to a custom countertop and just apply the molding to the countertop.

What Eric was trying to say is that YOU cannot have the plan open in Chief when you try to zip it. Close the plan and then zip it. If you try zipping while the plan is open then the resulting zipped file contains no information.

I am away from my computer and I don’t rightly remember/know all the reasoning or nuances but just off the top, this behavior gives us a way to set a “base level“ default and still allows for us to set another sort of temporary active default to control only newly drawn roof planes.

It would help if you were to post a plan or at least an image, but if you're talking about what I think you're talking about, it can totally be done, and it can be done in just a couple minutes...

You're likely getting no responses because you haven't posted the plan. A lot of people just get tired of asking and so they just pass right on by. You would probably have an accurate answer in a matter of minutes if you posted the plan, otherwise it's anyone's guess as to what's going on in your plan. I could personally play the guessing game but I have better things to do.

Chief actually gave us an option to simply set a Door Type as "Fixed" back in X11.

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.