Alaskan_Son

I suppose a popup warning with the option to Don't Show This Message Again might help the unaware. It also helps to just encourage people to use the appropriate tools and means of learning the software in the first place though.

I agree. This is an inherent problem that comes with the ability to "edit polyline solids in views other than the view in which they were created" and there's simply no way around it.

I also occasionally use them for oddball things like creating these chimney braces... ...where I want a specific profile that can be adjusted in 3D to sit at an off angle along multiple axis. As others have stated, they can definitely be a bear to work with at times though...even when you get good at them. More than anything though, even if you don't have a specific use at the moment, I find that it pays to know the tools you have available to you and to try to practice with them whenever you can. You never need most of them...right up until you need them that is, and when you do need them, it's awesome to not only know what they are and where they are, but also how to use them.

In X12 there are lots of things that will easily convert a p-solid to a solid. Simply editing the extrusion shape to anything other than a rectangle along any axis other than than the axis it was created on do it as well.

Yes. I also think its worth noting that you must select the appropriate face before making effective use of the Solid Feature, Extrude, or Revolve tools.

This is not true. If each of the 3 roof "planes" has the same arc shape, then the plan view would look completely normal (linear).

Instead of adjust the transparency, just uncheck Background and don't use a background at all.

Line style dash lengths are not affected by line weight. The dash length is controlled entirely by the line style itself. Either select a different line style or create a new one.

Here, I went ahead and did for you as a one time courtesy... CNC Panels.calibz Please Note: This was done in X12, so if you're using an older version you'll have to do it yourself. P.S. Those symbols have a lot of faces. They may bog your system down quite a bit if you use very many of them in the plan.

Turn that smoothing angle way up (360 should suffice), use the Delete Surface tool to delete all except the one you want to keep, and then select the object and click Convert Selected To Symbol.

By the way, your issue is just being exacerbated astronomically by the fact each one of those doors has roughly 2,000 faces. If one single projected plane is producing 62,000 lines, imagine all the lines being produced in a full 3D view. YIKES!!

Hey Rene, Your problem isn't the 3D object themselves but rather the material definition and the "alder_full" pattern you're using. Just the front elevation of that one hall pantry cabinet alone is producing 62,000 lines.

Yes and no. Those little 8" wall sections should likely just be framed conventionally. That would mean one single 17'+ cutout.

Don't have time to look into the curved roof issue. Glanced at it real quick though and nothing jumps out at me. Definitely something weird going on there and I would suggest you send it in to tech support. The muntin issue on the other hand is an easy one...your CAD Block is just a little too big and extends too far beyond the glass.

I would just model that manually using polyline solids, solids, and molding polylines, convert it to a symbol, set that symbol to Inserts Into Wall and then adjust the Wall Cutout Polyline.

You have attic walls on both your 2nd floor and on your attic level. They're conflicting with one another. Get rid of the ones on the attic level.

There must be something in the water. It feels like this hadn’t been brought up in months and then about six people asked about it within a span of about three weeks. Yes. Use Plan Check to bring it back. I wouldn’t call it a “known issue“ though. It’s just the way the software works and it’s in the documentation. It’s definitely a little goofy but I’m guessing Chief just didn’t see the need to make an entire tool for “bring living area label back”.

Or if you want specific lengths...

This is true and also not true. The information needs to be somewhere in the plan, but it doesn't necessarily need to be modeled. Chief's material list capabilities are very robust and there are many ways to get what you're after. Yes, you can model the fascia, but you can also just click on the Components tab for any given object and add the information there. Take this fascia for example, here's just one example out of many ways you can get it into your material list without actually modeling anything: Group select all the walls defining your deck (at least the ones defining edges where you want fascia). Open Object and click on the Components tab. Click Add Line Item (the little plus symbol) Adjust setting in that dialog to something like I have shown below... In this case I'm using the length of the wall to get my desired fascia length, so I need to make sure to Apply Formula To Source Object (the wall)... The resulting material list...

You’re not being forced to upgrade. You can keep creating and editing X11 plans all you want. The real question is this: Where did you get an X12 plan file? That had to have been some choice you made, no?

Need more useful words.

Google slides is another one that I know has shown problems. But again, it’s mostly only problematic on Macs as far as I know. I think you are wasting your time testing to see if its related to transparency or not. It’s a well-documented issue and we KNOW it’s related to the transparency.

It’s been mentioned many times in this thread, but the most consistently problematic app is Preview. When people say they’re printing from Preview, it’s not a generic term. It’s an app on the Mac platform (just in case you were missing that detail).

Try opening it in X11

This relationship can be adjusted as well... That being said. Sometimes it makes sense to go this route and sometimes it doesn't. If you have a complex terrain that's been surveyed using sea level and your house is 734.52' above sea level, it would be silly to label all you sections and elevations as 734.52'+ (unless specifically required by your building department) and it would be very inefficient to adjust all your terrain information to subtract 734.52'. Elevations are typically meant to communicate information about the house relative to itself and the house relative to the lot. There's rarely any logical reason to communicate information about the referenced elevation datum in an elevation like that (unless you're in a flood plane). If the building department or the situation requires it, then that's one thing, but forcing terrain data to mesh with section view data for a lot of situations just isn't worth the time or effort.