Alaskan_Son

In the overall defense of your case, I think this may be a bit of hyperbole. As you know, it's a lot more complicated than that. You obviously can't simultaneously implement conflicting requests and I would absolutely fault you for implementing requests that are obviously flawed in some way.

Yes. Or this...

Various methods. Try searching the Help files for things like "dropped ceiling" or "lowered ceiling" and read through the results to get a more precise answer, but there are several ways off the top... -Using multiple floors -Using ceiling planes -Using The Room Ceiling Finish -Using manual framing and solids

Ya, potato tomato

You should post the plan. Looks to me like you have manually positioned framing that just wasn't moved to suit changes to the model.

I agree. It's really not very intuitive. Having said that, a lot of things aren't though and I think it's out of necessity in order to keep the program manageable. We can't have a separate tool for every single little operation. I would argue that instead of users scouring the menus, scouring preferences, scouring defaults, scratching their heads and then finally posting on the forum, that they learn to use the program documentation properly instead. My question to you is why does it make more sense to scour all the menus than it does to search Help? And by the way, you say... ...so post a suggestion.

2 best options I can think of... 1. Paste without the borders into Rich Text Box and add your own afterward. 2. Better yet, paste into a standard text box and Display Grid Lines. You can then simply reuse the Text Box and/or manually created grids for future plans.

Yes. It does.

The devil is always in the details so there's no right or wrong way and it just comes down to what the extra buildings are for. Converting buildings to symbols is fine if you're only using them for a few basic 3D shots, but even then, I would consider those to be part of the "terrain stuff" and would still recommend moving those instead of the main building.

Select the schedule>Copy>Open Excel>Paste

This^^^^ is the main reason I recommended moving the terrain stuff instead. When you shift the building it typically messes with all your plan views, all your elevation views, and all your camera views whereas moving the terrain typically only affects the Plot Plan and maybe a couple other minor details.

Don't move the building. Just move the terrain stuff. Easiest to start by creating a layer set with only the desired layers turned on. Use Reference Display if you need snaps, and then (depending on the situation), you can either group select or use Edit Area Visible to move.

You betcha.

You can either combine views in layout, or...what I usually do... Cut/Paste Hold Position all the framing from one wall detail to the other. The downside to this is that you have to check Retain Wall Framing for those walls or turn Auto Framing off.

There is a solution. It's called Plan Check, and it's very quickly discovered by reading the Help files like everyone should be doing anyway... Living Area The Living Area label is an automatically generated Text object that reports the area of the current floor specified as living space. By default, Interior Rooms are defined as part of the Living Area, while Exterior and Hybrid Rooms are not. See Room Functions. Regardless of its Room Type, you can specify whether any room is included in the Living Area Calculation in theRoom Specification dialog. See General Panel. A Living Area label is created as soon as a room area is defined by walls and/or railings and is recalculated every time you add, remove, resize, or redefine a room or when you Rebuild Walls/Floors/Ceilings . If multiple buildings are created, each will have its own Living Area label. If none of a structure’s rooms are included in the Living Area Calculation, however, no Living Area label will display for it. Each Living Area label can be edited in its specification dialog. If a new floor is added, however, any existing Living Area labels will be deleted and replaced. See Text Specification Dialog. To turn off the display of all Living Area labels in a plan, uncheck Show Living Area Label in the General Plan Defaults dialog or turn off the “Room Labels” layer in the Layer Display Options dialog. See General Plan Defaults Dialog. The Living Area label can be moved or deleted. To restore a deleted Living Area label, select Tools> Checks>Plan Check . You can click the Done button immediately, without actually completing Plan Check. See Plan Check.

..or Wall Details like this?

There are a few ways, but I would personally just Delete, Trim, and/or Stretch CAD to trim/pull back the decking.

I think you may have missed my point. Using this logic, a rise of 17-3/4 would result in an 8-7/8” rise. Similarly, a 78-1/2” rise would result in a non code compliant 7.85” rise. We would need Chief to not only provide the user definable setting but also change the behavior from “closest to this number in either direction” (as it is now) to “closest below this maximum”.

I think the thing most are asking for is the ability to set a different ideal riser height but I’m not sure anyone has fully thought out what that means when combined with the way Chief currently works. I’m away from my computer right now but as I recall, Chief currently looks for the whole number divisor (Number of Treads) that results in a tread height that is CLOSEST to 6 3/4 inch. Sometimes that number is greater than the “ideal“ height and sometimes it’s less. Most codes in the United States don’t spell out an ideal riser height though, what they spec is a MAXIMUM riser height and that maximum riser height is usually somewhere in the neighborhood of the aforementioned 7 1/2. Being able to adjust that IDEAL height to 7-1/2” though could easily result in a riser height that’s too big. What I think most of us really want is a different behavior entirely actually—a setting for MAXIMUM ideal riser height that we can set as a default. Chief would simply carry out the following calculations: TR = Total Rise MR = Max Riser Height (user defined) NT = Number Treads = (TR/MR) rounded up to nearest whole number TR/NT = Automatic Riser Height Using Ruby it would look something like: automatic_riser_height=tr((tr/mr).ceil)

be careful using this method because it affects every instance of that material in the plan so it might fix your ceiling but screw up your walls somewhere. I would recommend creating a copy of the material in Plan Materials and rotate both the pattern and the texture for the new material. Are usually give it a new name that communicates its rotation properties such as. Pine T&G Pine T&G 45 Pine T&G -45 Pine T&G 90

Okay, I see. It looks like you're talking about the Concrete Cutouts for the doors. If you don't want to show them, open your doors, click on the Framing tab, and under where it says Add For Concrete Cutout, uncheck Show In Plan.

I think you're going to have to do a better job explaining your problem then because I don't understand what you're asking.

Check with @CharlesVolz

A few different options: Field Of View setting (turn it up) Clip Surfaces Within setting (turn it up) Perspective Crop Mode (use with caution as it will permanently affect that particular view, locking it to that specific perspective) Temporarily changing walls to be invisible and just backing the camera up Backing the camera up and just using the Delete Surface tool to temporarily remove unwanted obstructions Putting walls and other objects onto unique layers and temporarily turning those layers off (so you can back camera up)

Your walls are totally misaligned.