Alaskan_Son

You can't. Like I said in my post, Chief does not insert window symbols into walls as I believe they should. Instead, the symbols essentially attach to the surface of the wall. Because of this, there is no way to move the 2D Block. You have to place it manually. Try reading and following my instructions again. In Step 1 you are creating the block you will use to place in the wall. In Step 2 you are removing the automatically created block...the one that attaches itself to the wall. In Step 3 you are manually positioning your block. The last part (in red) is what I usually do myself. If you use something other than a Window Symbol (like the one you posted above...which again attaches TO the wall), then the 2D Block works fine because the object gets placed IN the wall instead. Only downside to the Fixture Symbol method is that the glass is not automatically transparent in Vector Views.

I’ve made boatloads of ‘em. I actually make custom tutorial videos on a regular basis. I throw one out from time to time for free here on the forum and have quite a few available on my YouTube channel (link in my signature), but I also provide them as a paid service. Shoot me over an email to alaskansons@gmail.com if you want to discuss further and we can take it from there.

Wall Specification>Roof>Roof Cuts Wall At Bottom. Read up on that setting.

Chief has always attached window symbols TO the wall rather than inserting them IN the wall as I believe they should. If you want to stick with the window symbol there are a few ways to deal with that, but here is one... Create a new CAD block with a solid fill. This could even be the same 2D Block automatically produced by the window symbol. Open the Window Symbol, click on the Plan View tab, and change the Plan View Sections to 2. This will Remove the CAD block being attached to the wall and replace it with a generic window Block. You can play with this Plan View display, adjusting the various dimensions in the dialog, etc. for some situations to get what you want, but for your example, I think you're just going to cover it anyway, so I would just leave it alone. Place your new block in the desired position and move it to the appropriate drawing group (in front of the automatically generated block).. What I typically do myself though is skip the Window Symbol entirely and just use a normal Fixture Symbol set to Inserts Into Wall (options tab).

I personally haven't seen Joey's plan/layout files, but when I create views like that, it's essentially done using Back Clipped Section views. Study and practice with the following tools and operations, and I think you'll figure it out: The Back Clip After setting for Cross Section/Elevation Cameras The Clip To Sides setting for Cross Section/Elevation Cameras Using Layer settings to control both what is displayed and what line styles/colors/weights are used for various items Using the Auto Detail tool and adjusting the automatically created filled polylines/boxes as may be necessary Adding your own Text, Dimension, and CAD objects to annotate and embellish as desired.

Best to post the plan, BUT, I'd say your lower stairs are just built too wide. It looks like they're encroaching into that wall is all.

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)