Alaskan_Son

You don’t select the dimension and edit it. You select the OBJECT that is being dimensioned. Then you can click on the desired dimension to change it.

Regardless of whether this was done using the Material Painter or in the Material tab (both of which would have the exact same effect), what you are showing is not the place to fix it. Like I said in my posts above, it needs to be done in the Exterior Wall Defaults. The source of the problem is at the default level and therefore it's very important that it be changed at the default level in order to avoid future problems.

Away from my computer now, but I already opened your plan before my original post, saw the problem, and fixed it. I was dropping you a hint in hopes you could figure it out on your own from there. The setting you need to change is in the Material tab of the Exterior Wall Defaults. At some point you told Chief to ignore the Wall Type Definition (the Default Material) and to specifically use that stucco color. Change the Exterior Surface material back to Use Default.

Default Settings>Wall>Exterior Wall See if you can figure it out from there. If not, post back.

I feel like this subject is one of the most misunderstood by even some of the core power user base. As a general rule of thumb, using the Material Painter really only becomes a problem when you are using it to change a material that is being controlled by the structural layer settings of a parametric object or when using it with Blend Colors with Materials toggled on. All other material changes made using the spray can are carried through exactly the same as they would be if you were to change that material using the Material tab and are therefore carried through to the material list as well. My recommendation is to use the Material Painter freely and often. It's one of the most efficient methods of changing materials, especially when used in the appropriate mode (Component, Object, Plan, Room, etc.) . For the most part, it should just be avoided in these scenarios: On exterior wall surfaces. It's almost never appropriate to just change the color of an exterior wall. You're almost always intending to change the actual structure of the wall and so you should be changing the Wall Type or Wall Type Definition. The main exception to this would be if you're just changing the actual color (paint) of a material on one or 2 specific wall sections in which case this would also be one of the very few circumstances where using Blend Colors With Materials may also be used effectively. Again though, these situations are few and far between. 99% of the time, exterior wall surface materials should be changed in the actual Wall Type Definition. On interior wall surfaces where the actual structural layers are being changed. Painting a drywall accent wall in a room a different color than the rest? Material Painter is totally appropriate. Changing the wall material from painted drywall to wood veneer? Change it in the Wall Type Definition. When changing framing layers. At the end of the day, it's important to just learn how the tools work. The Material Painter is essentially a shortcut to the Material tab. There are a few minor exceptions, but when it is appropriate to change a Material in the Material tab, then the spray can is good to go, otherwise, change in the Structure or Wall Type tab.

There are several ways of accomplishing your end goal. I would personally put Terrains a little further down my list of preferred methods though. You could pretty easily use Faces extruded into Solids or you could even use actual Roof Planes. Both of my preferred methods would essentially be done using your rafters as a wire frame. Faces would result in a smoother but less dynamic end product. Roof planes would require a little extra work but also carry a bunch of other benefits. Anyway, here's a quick example of how roof planes could be used. Your rafters were imperfectly modeled, so the resulting roof planes aren't quite perfect, and I didn't take any time to deal with the material definitions which may be necessary depending on the roofing material, but hopefully this should give you the basic idea. At the end of the day, I don't recall having yet found a roof that couldn't be accomplished using multiple planes though... Parabaloid modified.plan

Looks like a layer that you added. Post the plan or layout file and I'm sure someone can help you find where its being used.

To be fair, there is no scenario where an accurate model has columns and slab occupying the same space. Either the posts sit on the slab or the slab is poured around the posts.

As Dermot pointed out, this really only helps for coplanar faces, not so much for intersecting faces.

Perhaps. Using images have a number of other issues even in standard views, but ignoring those for the moment, I actually use vector based views (both Vector Views and Watercolor with Line Drawing) for about 95% of the 3D views that I send out.

I personally almost never use this method. It has a few notable issues to contend with. One of the most problematic though is that the results are essentially useless in Vector based views.

Yes. You'll have the same problem. You'll need to marquee select still. If you convert to an Architectural Block or Symbol though, then there's no problem. Note that if you try to Explode the Architectural Block though that you'll have problems.

Just to clarify what Ben is talking about here and to confirm. You absolutely CAN completely get around the issue, not by marquee selecting the spline, but by marquee selecting the main polyline. In that particular plan, the real trick is how to select only the one polyline because not only do you have 2 overlapping polylines in that plan, but you also have the underlying picture box which is also the exact same size of shape as the 2 polylines. First you'll have to get that sorted and then it all works like butter. There are a few ways to separate the aforementioned items, but here's one... Group select all 3 using a marquee. Click again on the edge of the 3 objects while holding down the control key. This should reduce your selection to 2 objects. Drag those 2 objects off to the side a specific distance using the Tab key. It should become apparent which objects were separated now. If the object that remains is the picture, simply place that onto it's own layer, lock that layer, and then repeat steps 2 and 3 to separate the first 2 objects and drag just the one back into position. If the object that remains is the unwanted polyline, simply delete it, repeat steps 2 and 3 to separate the picture box and good polyline, put picture on locked layer, blah blah blah. The point is that you use the same tricks to separate the objects and get the picture onto the locked layer so that all future selections of the main polyline can easily be done with a marquee. Any changes to the size or shape of the main polyline would have to be done using boolean operations because selection with a single click is not an option. Again though, no problems at all when selecting with a marquee. Thanks for the tip @BenMerritt. I've never had the issue quite to this extent, but I have had some notable slowdowns with similar scenarios and I think this method may help speed things up a bit until you can get this issue addressed.

Just for whatever it’s worth: It doesn’t seem to be an issue with splines (other than the fact they may have been the original source of geometry) . I didn’t inspect in great detail, but it looked like all the polyline holes were made up of plain polylines (no arcs or splines that I noticed). I noticed that boolean operations seemed to be smooth and fast as ever if they are all done in succession (starting with the clean rectangular polyline and never de-selecting it). If however the polyline with multiple complex holes is de-selected and then re-selected we have the problems. Not sure what the deal is because I’ve done this type of thing many many times. Maybe I just never reached that number of segments in the contained holes.

He wants the displayed scale to change during this process.

One thing that can make a HUGE difference is Temporary Dimensions. Try turning those off before starting over or going back to modify the cutouts.

Ya, that's not possible. You're better off just sending them 2 files.

That's actually exactly what the %scale% macro does. It adjusts values to reflect both onscreen and printed scale. Give it a quick test...Place that macro into a plan view and send that view to layout at 1/4" scale. Now print that page to PDF TO SCALE. You should see that the scale on the PDF prints as 1/4 in. = 1 ft. Now print it to to PDF at 1/2 scale. You should now see that the scale on the PDF prints as 1/8 in. = 1 ft.

You should really be posting over in the HomeTalk forum... https://hometalk.chiefarchitect.com/?_fromLogin=CA3 That being said, Home Designer does have some options in this regard. Model your object using your available tools, take a 3D view, and then File>Export>Export 3D Model. You can then Import this same model as a symbol.

Just to be clear, what you're showing has nothing to do with the truss. It's a limitation with framing members. I do agree that it would be nice if we could edit framing members more freely though. In the meantime we have to trim them with other framing members to get the desired shapes.

It is controlled by the layer color. You just won't see it change if the camera is open. Send to layout or close the camera and you'll see the line color change.

If you ever want to share symbols with people using older versions, just open a 3D view and Export as 3DS.

Make sure to Open SYMBOL, not Open Object.

To expand on what Robert is showing, I would recommend: Dropping symbol into a blank plan Open Symbol and turn Smoothing Angle up to 180 Use Delete Surface tool to delete unwanted surfaces one at a time (turning Smoothing Angle up makes this much quicker) Click Tools>Symbol>Convert To Symbol

Sorry Doug, just got back to my actual computer and realized that I was being sloppy again and misread your code earlier. What you did was just fine. My bad . I should have waited till I was able to focus a little better. I'd love to help you if I can find the time. In the meantime, here's a quick little lesson on the house. Chief stores the height and width for your door as a Measurement in inches in Imperial plans (millimeters in Metric plans). In my original, sloppy, uncorrected version of %(width/12).round%, I was taking the width (in inches), dividing by 12, and rounding it to the nearest whole unit. So, for a 16'-1"(193") wide door, The actual result would have been 193"/12 (16.08333") rounded to the nearest whole unit (16"). The result would have been displayed simply as 16 (no unit indicator) if a person were to uncheck Use Default Formatting in the Label panel, but it would still be stored as inches, which is exactly the bad practice I was telling Doug to avoid. My corrected version of %(width/12).to_f.round% took the value (in inches), divided by 12, converted to a float (essentially a number that includes fractional values in decimal form), and then rounded that value to the nearest whole number. Note that a float is NOT a Measurement but a completely unit-less number. So the result would be 193"/12 or 16.08333" converted to a float (16.08333), rounded to the nearest whole number (16). Doug's correction of %(width/12.inch).round% took the value (in inches), divided it by a specific number (also in inches) and the result was a unit-less Measurement value. This is completely fine for this particular use case, but it should be noted that the result is being stored in a somewhat funky state because it's still a Measurement but has no unit. This is particularly weird if you try to add it to another Linear Measurement with a specified unit in which case you would get an error. In addition, you wouldn't be able to even assign a unit without first converting the result to a float. All this is a non-issue with your particular use case, but it’s something to think about while you’re learning the syntax and developing your own personal methods. I think a more logical, more correct, and more useful method might simply be %width.to_ft.round% which would simultaneously convert the inches to feet (no math necessary on our part) and convert that to a float. Using this same logic approach, a person could easily convert their door sizes to meters without needing to know the conversion with something like like %width.to_m% Anyway, there's a lot more to the Measurement class but it's really quite useful and can make very quick and easy work of otherwise complex calculations. Quick example: a = 1.ft + 1.m +1.in ----> 52.370079 in b = a.to_m ----> 1.3302 ...very quick and easy conversions. I could spend all day digging deeper, but those are a few of the very basic basics as they relate to this particular topic at hand.