Alaskan_Son

You're kind of moving the goalpost here. Until now there was no discussion about using the Library in Select Library Object mode. I was only responding to the original question.

As Doug mentions, you can use the Cross Section Slider. The catch here is that you just can't use it in the Vector View rendering mode. You have to switch to a different Rendering Technique.

If you're still in X14, just right click on the User Library and select Search Folder. If you're on X15, just click on the User Library and then enter your search term(s). No need to even set up a special filter.

Those are Temporary Roof Intersection Points.

Are you perhaps changing the text style for the Post's layer instead of changing the text style for the Label's layer?

You should really figure out a way to post the plan. Use Dropbox maybe, try zipping, or delete everything that isn't necessary to show the problem. In fact, in simply trying to delete all the unnecessary bits, you may inadvertently figure out the problem on your own. Regardless, you'll find that you get a lot less interest from people willing to help with problem like these without posting the plan. There are simply too many variables and not many people want to rack their brain for possible causes and then play a long drawn out guessing game to figure out whether they're right or not. Its' not god for you either because a lot of times those guesses waste your time and energy as well.

The question has been marked as answered already, but I think a few additional things should really be noted on this: The title and wording of your question refer to both Schedule Categories/New Custom Categories but your screenshot is showing Note Types/New Note Types. These are 2 entirely different things. Although the Note Types show up as available Schedule Categories, they themselves are not actually Custom Schedule Categories and must be deleted through Note Type Management as @scottharris already pointed out. As another example, adding a Wall Type would also create a new Schedule Category which in turn would need to be deleted by removing the Wall Type through the Wall Type Definitions dialog. Same goes for Room Types which must be deleted through the Room Types dialog--and so on. A new object type will create a new category that can in turn only be deleted by deleting that particular object type through its appropriate dialog. Actual Custom Schedule Categories on the other hand can be managed through Default Settings>Schedules>Custom Schedule Categories.

Making new baselines automatically isn't a thing because it would be useless and potentially confusing. The whole purpose of making Baseline Polylines is to disconnect the automatic roof from using the roof directives in your walls and rooms to use using directives from the baseline polyline instead. An automatically regenerated baseline polyline would have to adjust based on walls and rooms and would therefore serve no purpose. At some point you just need to say "okay, its time to make that disconnect." and click on that Make Roof Baseline Polylines tool.

I don't understand. I opened your plan an Auto Rebuild is already turned on and working just fine. If I change any given wall to a gable or hip for example, the roof changes to suit. And you have no Roof Baseline Polylines in the plan.

I doubt you actually believe what you’re saying as strongly as you’re letting on unless you’re also totally opposed to shower curbs and storm doors. Regardless of that though, perceived danger isn’t the discussion. We’re talking about code requirements, and I am quite familiar with the definitions of not only stairway but also stair, landing, floor, riser, and flight amongst other applicable terms. It makes absolutely perfect sense to me, exactly as written ESEPCIALLY considering all those definitions, and I don’t see how they could’ve made it any more clear. In essence: Egress doors need properly sized floors or landings at or near threshold height on both sides. An exception is made to allow a drop on one side provided that the door doesn’t swing over that dropped landing. For these required egress doors there is no exception made for a landing on both sides. For non-egress doors, the requirement is relaxed a bit to allow for a drop on both sides (irrespective of door swing). In addition, an exception is granted to do away with one of the required landings provided that the door doesn’t swing over the stairs on that exempted side. And if the code itself isn’t clear enough regarding both levels of relaxed requirements, then the official IRC commentary should further clear it up:

You just have to select those Text Boxes and change the font by clicking on the Text Style tab. Those particular text boxes are just set to be using a Custom Text Style and are not linked to any Saved Defaults.

Right. Here's the actual wording from the 2021 IRC: That's it. That's the whole rule. No mention of door swing at all. Where people seem to confuse the matter is by trying to shoehorn wording from the exception into the rule itself. The exception to the rule is this: The exception is clearly trying to provide a way out of needing a landing on one side. The most common place we see this is where we have super narrow garage that has room for one or 2 steps up to the man door but not enough room for a landing. The landing requirement therefore is removed from one side, but only if the door doesn't swing that direction.

I think nobody is chiming in to help here because the problem appears too wordy, complicated to wrap our heads around, and too complex an issue to troubleshoot without an actual plan file...simply too many variables. Most of us don't want to think that much only to play a guessing game version of whack-a-mole. Anyway, if you were to post a plan, you would likely have a lot more good answers already.

Well $#!+. You are correct, I deleted that extra face using the Delete Surface tool and failed to mention that part. I created it really quick, and then just typed out instructions from memory. That explains some of the confusion. Regarding the conversion to a solid, I just did that out of habit. Historically, Chief has commonly had issues when 2 different types of solids are used with Boolean operations (polyline solids vs solids vs parametric 3D Shapes, etc. It was just a preemptive safety measure. It may not be necessary. Also, in case you were wondering, the reason for the convert to symbol step has to do with the fact I used the Delete Surface tool which as you know is only temporary. Exploding the object and just deleting the extra face might work as well. I think the symbol is a little easier to store and work with than a twisted/distorted face is though.

Damn, I would hate to live in a world like yours where the automatic presumption is an ensuing lawsuit. All that aside. I’m a little perplexed. Are you honestly of the opinion that the code section and successive subsection in question are just repeating the same thing? That sounds a little ridiculous. I’m also curious then why you think they would be using different words the second time around.

Again, you guys must be much better readers than I because I didn’t read any of that, and you must also know how to use all the tools better than me because I can’t seem to get my method to not work. I’ll have to try again when I have more time to waste.

I must really suck at writing and following instructions then because I thought I explained exactly how to create a half dome standing on its side…and I must have just skimmed past the part in the question that said it was supposed to be 1/2” thick glass. I’ll either try harder next time or just skip it altogether.

Either of you care to expand on why my initial solution with half as many faces doesn’t work?

A bunch of ways, but the first that comes to mind is to: Use the Sphere tool to create a large sphere Select that Sphere and click the Convert to 3D Solid tool Create a large rectangular Solid that intersects and covers half of the sphere in plan view and make sure it’s tall enough to completely cover the sphere from top to bottom. Select the Sphere, click the Polyline Subtraction tool, and then click on the rectangular solid. Activate the Delete Surface tool in a 3D view and then click on the unwanted flat circular face to remove it. Select the remaining half dome and click the Convert Selected to Symbol tool.

I agree with Alan, this should just be done with walls and roof planes. Having said that, I would start by exploding your dormer. Then convert the hole in your lower roof plane to a standard polyline. Then select that roof plane, click the polyline subtraction tool, and then click on the polyline that used to be a roof hole.

By the way, if you DO have Auto Deck Framing toggled off, you can also simply break and resize the actual deck framing components themselves.

Do you possibly have Automatically Regenerate Deck Framing toggled off? Because both methods work for me.

Just to be clear, a floor or landing is not required provided that a door does not swing over the stairs. It then stands to reason that if a door does swing over the stairs then a landing is required. That does not however preclude a single 7-3/4" drop-down to the landing for a non-egress door. Egress requirements specifically state that the door cannot swing over the landing. For non egress doors, the wording is changed to state that the door cannot swing over the stairs. The requirements are therefore indeed a little different.

I can't speak to TurboPDF, but I use NitroPro for exactly the types of things you're talking about and it works great.

Yes. I know. My question was rhetorical.