Alaskan_Son

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.

No. I don't believe it does. The issue you're showing is very easy to reproduce in about 30 seconds starting with a blank plan. Report it to tech support.

This may change things a bit with regard to what gets deleted since the program doesn't have a chance to finish running through it's normal order of operations. Chief has changed the undo system over the years to speed things up. I believe at one point they did essentially save the entire plan. I believe the system now though only records the information necessary to reverse the last command. This would explain why some Undo files are very small and others are quite large.

You should rotate it back to zero. If you want the house oriented 90 degrees off what it is at zero, then do that by using Edit Area (All Floors).

Here's one quick way: Orthographic Floor Overview (Shift+G) 3D>View Direction>Top View 3D>Rendering Techniques>Line Drawing OPTIONALLY 3D>Toggle Patterns to turn off excessive linework caused by pattern display.

This would probably be good. We all kinda feel like what we're doing is pretty standard, but I find very few systems are actually the same. More often than not, there's some specific detail that's entirely unlike anything anyone else is doing...or we're just talking about 2 different things. So ya, an example would be helpful just to make sure we're on the same page.

Decided to double check what it would take to report as required 16 footers before I turned in for the night. Way easier than I was even thinking it would be... ML example 2.plan Anyway, these are just a couple simple examples of what can be done with the Materials List using the Components tab, and I'm really only scratching the surface with these. No, we can't get quite the level of reporting control using the Components tab that we can with Structural Member Reporting, but we can get some pretty accurate counts and actually have a quite a few extra capabilities that Structural Member Reporting could never provide us with.

You're kinda moving the goalpost there aren't you? Regardless, reporting specific lengths should be possible too but a lot more complicated and not something I have time to get into. For an overall count though, here is a very quick, down and dirty example. Just select the Materials List Polyline in the attached plan and click Calculate Materials in Polyline. You should see an accurate report. Then adjust the polyline to narrow the selection down and run it again. You should see that the Material List adjusts accordingly. ML example.plan P.S. This is only showing one method of many. The Material List capabilities we have are very robust.

Your color is toggled OFF in your "Framing, 1st Floor Plan" Plan View. Just turn it on. You can do this in several different ways.... View>Color F8 key Project Browser>select Plan View>right click>Edit View>check Show Color Edit Active View>check Show Color Use the Color toggle in the Toggle Modes Toolbar