Alaskan_Son

It’s one of the side effects of Chief’s room based modeling paradigm. It’s not only a problem with the walls that need to extend below the room definition but also a problem with the outside corner that lands above the roof where the roof cuts those 2 exterior walls down. Aside from patching with Polyline Solids, the only other solution I can think of is to insert a short floor and use an Open Below room.

There are a few methods Steve. You can manually modify the truss polyline, you can manually modify the truss members, or you can use the required calculations to make it happen automatically. For the latter, you can either take the necessary measurements in an elevation view and adjust the roof plane accordingly, or you can input the required numbers directly into the Build Roof dialog. Amongst other things, the required formula depends on whether you want to use a specific overhang or a specific heel height. I posted some macros to help speed up these calculations in another thread. See if this helps at all... ...as Michael alluded to above though, the numbers need to be set just so. I wouldn’t say it’s hit and miss, but it can definitely seem that way if your measurements and calculations aren’t precise.

As Eric has already alluded to, try to really take advantage of the resources Chief has provided. Particularly, I would recommend learning to take advantage of The Help files. The tab Eric shows above will take you to some very good information in those files. Even better in my opinion is to very carefully read through the options in the various dialogs, and any time you have a questions as to what the setting is for, click the little Help button down in the corner. In this case, clicking Help and reading through the various options should ultimately lead you here... ...to the Upper Pitch setting...which is what I believe you are after.

Do you get a new dog for each project?

My thoughts: Using the %box_scale% macro in your Plan View name muddles up the Plan View list, you still have to open the Layout Box Specification dialog every time and check Specify Label if you want to get the intended benefits, and if you change the Layout Box to use a different Plan View, you have to remember to go back to the Label tab and actually change the label manually. Plus, you can't use multiple Text Styles for your label. If you want to use the %box_scale% macro, my suggestion is to simply use a Text Box with an Arrow. Just copy and paste as necessary for other layout boxes. Total Control over text style(s), automatic changes if you change referenced Plan View, and no muddling up your Plan View naming. Just place the lines with arrows onto a unique layer that can be toggled on and off as necessary.

Not too shabby Richard!

Although I'm sure this was posted with the best of intentions and although I'm sure you know what you meant to convey, this statement is still fraught with errors and I think it needs to be clarified. CAD Blocks can be used and stored anywhere in your plan or layout. This could be in Plan View, in a CAD Detail, in an Elevation View, on a Layout Page, etc. They will always be available in CAD Block Management though if they exist anywhere in the plan. This should not be confused with CAD Detail Management. Robert was referring specifically to CAD Block Management. Not only does CAD Block Management give you access to each and every CAD Block currently being used in that file, it will also give you access to every CAD Block that has EVER been used in the plan unless those CAD Blocks have either been manually purged or automatically purged by checking Automatically Purge CAD Blocks. I have seen this particular item cause MASSIVE file bloat in plans where people use the old "Save As Method" for a long time. I personally recommend keeping Automatically Purge CAD Blocks checked unless you really know what you're doing and why you're doing it.

There does seem to be some sort of limit. I've seen this behavior manifest itself with minimum sizing but this is the first time I've seen it with maximum sizing. The problem isn't actually triggered by moving the object. It's triggered by opening the Fixture Specification dialog and doing anything except hitting Cancel. You just have to move it without using Open Object. Use either Transform Replicate or Move in an elevation. You should also report to Tech Support.

good to know. I believe that’s the first time I actually posted a pre-formatted macro like that. I just won’t do it anymore.

I suggest one slight adjustment that saves tons of time...Explode, Make Architectural Block while still selected, an then change any colors you want.

You bet. Not sure if you are or not, but don't be to intimidated by the task. It's really not that difficult to set up. Just shoot me over an email if you need help.

CAD was my first thought too, but ultimately, I see the Referenced Plan as being way faster and far less error prone. If you make any changes to the Plan... With the CAD method you have to delete the old CAD, switch Layer Set, create new CAD Detail, switch Layer Set back, copy and Paste CAD, and Delete extra CAD Detail. With the second plan method all you have to do is Save As 2 times and you're done. Of course you have to change the Plan Display back and forth for both methods.

I place appliances independently of cabinets almost exclusively.

Alan, Ruby would be all but useless for that, however, it’s something you could totally accomplish with a simple macro recorder. I recommend Macro Recorder by JitBit... https://www.jitbit.com/macro-recorder/ You essentially just record key strokes and/or mouse clicks and assign to a hotkey. In fact, a lot of gaming mice and keyboard come with built in macro recording software so you might already have something similar.

I agree with Joe. This is probably the most efficient solution. Just add a quick Save As to part of your workflow before printing your layouts.

That's certainly a good reason for showing parallel. I do wonder though, how you do you communicate where the joists sizes or spacing are supposed to change using that system?

I guess I should have further qualified my statement. I've met folks here on ChiefTalk who do it that way. Don't believe I've met anyone in person who does though or outside of Chief for that matter. Even so, here are my quick thoughts on why I prefer perpendicular... If you're showing the joists in your plan, the direction arrow becomes entirely redundant if it's running parallel. With the label running perpendicular, it can much more effectively communicate the extent of the specified joists (i.e. which sizes should be used at what spacing and where). Running parallel can really only give a size, redundant direction, and has no way of effectively communicating which joists it is referring to. In addition, parallel labels blend into the joists a whole lot easier making them harder to pick out.

I'm suspecting you posted this in the wrong thread.

If you draw a Floor Ceiling Beam, a Roof Beam, a Post, a General Framing Member, or just about any other Framing Object for that matter, they all have the Option on the General Panel to by drawn as a "Steel-I" Type.

I'm assuming you have an invisible wall here... ...just change it to a Gable Wall

I use manual joist direction lines for a different reason entirely...I run my joist labels perpendicular to the joist direction and always have. In fact, I don't think I personally know any designers or architects who label them parallel and I don't recall having ever built off a set of plans where they were labeled that way either. Actually, I don't like Chief's automated label text either.

Ah, I see.

That just shifts the problem elsewhere if you ask me, and for whatever its worth, you can get the same results by adjusting the bearing line over on the left. In fact, delete that Joist Direction Line and the bearing line on the left and you're right back at square one. Bottom line is that Chief definitely treat this scenario in unexpected ways. Again, it's very easy to reproduce with a blank plan using no joist direction lines at all.

Ya, I was pretty sure it required exactly 5 repetitions, but I wasn't 100% positive so I said 5 or 6 and kept it less specific just in case. I think it's one of those things I was trying to force at one point be trying various things (Time, Speed, etc.). At one point, it finally stuck, so I knew it was possible and just stayed persistent till I figured out why. I'm not sure I would have ever figured it out, except that I'm relatively certain we used to only have to tell Chief 3 times (which was a lot easier to discover by accident). Before I answered your question, I tested it again and 3 times didn't work, but since I knew it used to work I just kept trying. It seems Chief has become a bit more hard headed over the years. P.S. Probably worth reporting to tech support if its a feature you want to hold onto and make easier to use.

Sorry bud, this isn't a view specific setting. It's all one way or all the other.