Alaskan_Son

The reason I asked is because Chief introduced the Measurement class in X12. Prior to X12, object attributes like owner.width were stored and reported as Floats which are numeric. They are no longer stored and reported as Floats but as Measurements with specified units. In Imperial plans, the units are inches, and in Metric plans, the units are millimeters. The reason your initial code wouldn't work is because "if referenced.width <= 42..." didn't make any sense. Since referenced.width is being stored as inches you needed to specify 42 of what. Eric's code got around this by converting width to a float (decimal) or an integer (whole) number with no unit. He could then compare the 2 values apples to apples. My recommended approach would be different and I would suggest taking advantage of Chief's Measurement class by just adding a unit to 42... "if referenced.width <= 42.in..." or "if referenced.width <= 3.5.ft..." As a parting tip, I would also strongly recommend against coercing a value into an integer unless it really makes sense for the application. It will always round down to the nearest whole number and values below 1 will always result in 0. It's just bad practice in my opinion. A 41.75" cabinet would report as 41 and any values multiplied by a value less than one would result in zero. The better approach is .to_f.round with or with an argument.

Are you using X11 like your signature says or X12?

In these instances there is no benefit to importing as a PDF anyway since a PDF produced from a scan is nothing more than an image file contained in a PDF. I try not to make a habit of reporting things just because I see another user having a problem or just because I might eventually have a probelm. This really isn't doing much good since among other things: A. It waters down the accuracy of the big picture as it relates to what users are really having issues with. I don't want Chief thinking 5 people are having a problem with something that's only affecting 2 users. There may be another problem that 4 people are genuinely having an issue with. Guess which one just got pushed to the front of the line. B. People need to report their own problems in order for Chief to get an accurate picture of how the problem is actually affecting their workflow, what solutions might be acceptable for that person who's actually having the problem, and the exact steps that led to the problem in the first place. C. I don't want to shoot myself in the foot. Chief has limited resources and if my other issues haven't been addressed yet, the last thing I want to do is add more to the list to detract from what really matters to me.

Have you reported this issue to Chief? I know I never did...mostly because I only EXTREMELY rarely import PDF's into my Layout. I usually just re-draw the desired elements right inside Chief.

There is. You can use a PDF editor and insert the desired PDF after Chief does it's thing. Not ideal but the end results are much better than the aforementioned alternatives.

... and the subfloor height above terrain setting is NOT a piece of elevation data.

You have to supply chief with at least two pieces of elevation data in order to create any kind of slope.

There are several ways. One way is to draw your deck at the larger size first, open the deck room, click on the Deck tab, uncheck Automatically Rebuild Deck Framing and check Keep Deck Framing after Deck Room is Deleted. Now move your railing walls. Another way is to increase the thickness of your walls. And yet another way is to make all your deck defining walls Invisible and then use No Room Definition walls for the actual railing. This is one of the trickier routes (especially with regard to dealing with the various wall transitions) but offers a few capabilities than the other 2 options don’t. There are other methods as well, but see if one of those does it for you.

Pretty sure I’m offended, but good stuff nonetheless. You’ve obviously done your research

I'm curious, why can't you use that one? It looks to me like that's an image of a 3D model you already have.

I personally disagree and prefer drawing my door panels in plan view. You get a lot more usable snaps that way, have the advantage of being able to work with regular molding polylines rather than 3D molding polylines, and you can use the height attributes to more methodically set the location of your various components in the Z direction.

Hey Ron, I’m curious...It looks like you’ve been using Chief for about 20 years. How have you been drawing all your plans with tilted/sloped walls up till now?

I don’t have a Mac so I haven’t experienced any of these issues, but to those of you who are, please make sure to report to Chief. My experience has always been that they DO care and they do fix problems that get reported in a usable way by enough people. We need to report our problems though so that they can reproduce. If they can’t reproduce or figure out what triggers the problem, they can’t fix it. Also, contrary to Michael’s Gia’s statement above, I l’ve never felt that Chief is hesitant to admit when there’s an issue. I’ve reported probably 100’s of issues, many of which have been subsequently addressed and in almost all cases, they are quick to admit that they were able to confirm or reproduce the issue. If they can’t reproduce doesn’t mean they’re lying or don’t care, just that they haven’t been able to reproduce the same scenario. Maybe they aren’t running multiple monitors and/or using multiple resolutions, maybe they don’t have your specific combination of software, hardware, and drivers, or maybe it’s just user error. In any case, I assure you, Chief cares, they listen, and they fix issues that are reported by enough of us. We all have to REPORT our issues though and in a useful way.

A couple examples of HELPFUL responses. It makes sense to indicate my feelings as such with a couple upvotes. Frankly, I’m curious who honestly finds any of the following helpful in any way and marked it at such... You’re suggesting Chief is lying, doesn’t care if there’s a problem for a large portion of their user base, has no intention of fixing it, and that people should refrain from communicating their positive experiences (i.e. keep it negative or shut up). And then, seemingly just to make sure you burn all your bridges, you go ahead and take a parting jab at anyone who doesn’t hold the same general disdain for Chief and who might like to help discourage potentially toxic and unhelpful responses with a downvote. I for one think it’s probably a good idea Chief had the foresight to limit downvotes for unhelpful responses because I would have likely hit the button a few times for that one.

It looks to me like you made a lot more than some standard ceiling height changes. You must have done something pretty extreme.

There is no longer a "Sits on Roof" option in the Symbol Specification dialog. Instead, Chief added the option to the Object Specification dialog (as Joe mentioned above while I was typing this up)...

Just to be clear, the symbol in the plan didn't necessarily need to be replaced. You could have just renamed the symbol in the plan.

That's because there IS nothing. Multiple units is the only way.

Group select your notes and simply copy/paste into the other plan. Paste them off to the side and delete the unnecessary duplicates.Easy peasy. You can also simply save commonly used notes to your library and just place them from there.

I always send as plot lines which makes it easy to snap to all linework in the view. This makes very quick work of covering with a solid filled patch IN LAYOUT that only needs to be adjusted if the changes affect that particular cabinet profile. Also, you can break and create steps in your elevation camera section lines to create a little jog around the problem cabinets.

Angela, If you have a mnaually drawn dimension that already exists in the plan, Chief will use that instead of producing its own Temporary Dimensions. Those dimensions you're seeing could be dimensions that you have drawn and that are on a layer that is currently not displayed. Also, temporary dimensions are controlled in part by your currently Active Dimension Defaults. So if you have those set to Locate Centers, then your Temporary Dimensions will locate centers as well.

Thanks Lew. I have to say that this one indeed qualifies as a genuine workaround.

...and possibly never should be.

I think basement levels are always a little weird, both with regard to the Living Area label and with regard to the Plan Check tool. At any rate, you can trick Chief into giving you back your Living Area Label on Floor 0 by enclosing a little room off to the side that is completely separate from the rest of the structure. Now connect that room to the existing structure with a connecting wall. Now simply delete all those new walls. What's really happening is that you're tricking Chief into recognizing a new Living Area and therefore generating a new Living Area Label. When you draw the connecting wall, Chief considers them both part of the same structure and includes both areas in the total. Deleting the extra walls just deletes that one room and the new label stays.

Turn off Blend Colors with Materials. And like some of the other guys have already mentioned, take advantage of the Help files.