Alaskan_Son

Search "Drawing Group"

I do much the same thing, however, there are very good reasons for the 2 to get different names such as... When I'm referencing more than one plan file with a single layout (As-Built, Demolition, Proposed, Details, Warehouse plan, etc.) When I'm using more than one layout file for a single plan file (Permit Plans, Cabinet Plans, Tile Details, Window Order, Fabrication Drawings, etc.)

I made some videos on this a while back, but one other major advantage is that you can quickly, easily, and very deliberately choose some very specific door sizes and types so that you're sure to be selecting from the doors you or your builder actually want to be using. Imagine for example you're working for a builder who only uses a very specific door company/style for each door, only uses 2/4, 2/6, and 3/0 hinged doors. By adding to and pulling from the library, placing the appropriate doors in the appropriate locations can be done with a single click...select a 2/4 door for bathrooms, select a 2/6 door for bedrooms, etc. In addition, it can be very quick to place doors of specific sizes this way if you ever have to trace imported DWG or DXF files. Instead of a place-adjust-reposition operation it can become a single click operation placing a 3/0 bifold right where you want it.

A few quick notes and tips: 1. %file.name% is a purely Chief Architect text macro and not anything you can access or modify with Ruby. 2. %file.name% placed in layout gets its information from the Layout file, not from the Plan file. 3. If really you want to use %file.name%, one thing you can do is use a monospaced font and simply cover the rest of the name with a CAD mask (solid fill set to background color and invisible line style). Then place the objects in the appropriate Drawing Order. 4. If it was me, I would be using and modifying (with Ruby) the referenced_filename attribute along with a Layout Box.

Haven't dug to deep so I'm not sure where exactly the problem is, but I can definitely reproduce in X10. No problems in X11 or X12 though so I suspect it's a bug or specific performance issue that's been addressed in newer versions.

My comment was directed at the person who doesn't understand where the layout box is getting is information from in the first place. In my opinion, it's best to understand what's going on before trying to address it. Besides, the layout box may not even be referencing a Saved Plan View anyway. Bottom line and key is that a Layout Box remembers certain things. You can see most of those things by opening the Layout Box Specification dialog. Then you can either proceed to change those things right in that dialog or you can adjust the appropriate Saved Plan View.

...better yet, select your Layout Box, open it, and study that dialog carefully. Hopefully that exercise will help you understand a little better what’s going on.

You can also consider using one or more Custom Object Information Fields along with text macros to place more information into your columns. This way you're not wasting quite as much space in the rest of the schedule. This example only has a few pieces of information combined, but I'm sure you'll get the idea...

Oh, I use them, I just uncheck the Scale Images setting is all.

Click the Renumber Schedule tool.

A similar thing happened to me a little while back. Both my Bonus and Manufacturer catalogs were emptied out. Never figured out what caused it. Never happened before that, hasn't happened since, and only happened on one of my machines.

The setting is Use Plan View Scale. I would take it a step further though and recommend unchecking Scale Images. When you scale images, out of necessity, the images you see will be scaled to accommodate the tallest or widest window in your list and will result in tons of wasted space. If you don't want that happening, don't use that setting.

There are several methods, but if you use trusses, you can simply make them all Reduced Gable trusses and then manually drag an automatically generated lolookout right over the top of all of them.

Don't recall any bugs. I do however recall video card issues. Some solutions in the past... Update drivers Adjust Hardware Edge Smoothing The ole standby...Hide In This View

It's actually the Rotate Plan View tool, and it's only a problem if you're using it for an unintended purpose. It really really irks me that they placed that tool right next to the Reverse plan tool. They had moved it to where it lived exclusively with the Plan View tools for a while (where it really belongs IMO) and to where it was separated from the Reverse Plan tool, but for whatever reason, they put them back together where they can easily mess up the unaware. I'm sure this isn't really the case, but it almost feels like someone is trying to sabotage the tool so it causes problems and gets depreciated.

Yes. Add the toggles to your toolbars or assign hotkeys. See Tools>Toolbars and Hotkeys

There's not. One thing that can be a lot faster though is to just manually place NEW posts after the fact. When the post is initially placed, it's automated behaviors will find the footing below and the beam above and automatically fill in the gap. So, rather then adjust each and every posts manually, just delete them, and place new ones. Could cut the time from minutes to seconds.

I think the answer to your question really lies in the level of accuracy you need. For example, I could train/coach you so that you could model your own and provide you with some necessary elements to get started, but the process isn't the easiest and requires a certain level of Chief proficiency to use effectively. On the other hand, if a general idea is all you really need to show, then Chief's floor trusses can actually work just fine and here are a few tips on the house to get you started... Here are some basic settings... ...and the various components can be edited in the truss detail as desired (in this case I just deleted the end members and made the bottom web shorter... ...after the trusses are built and multi-copied, you can reduce the depth of the floor structure, and visually it's not too shabby at all... Here's a quick crappy example plan too... Bar joist example plan.plan

Can you post an example of this behavior?

Yep.

Short answer... I think it can probably be forced by jumping through a bunch of hoops, but I think this is one where manual roofs are the better option.

Can't speak for Eric, but I would simply use the Stretch CAD tool or a CAD Line along with the Trim tool. Should only take a few seconds.

No problem. Glad you got it figured out. On a side note though, I would really encourage you to adjust your workflow and find and use a different font you like so that you can employ actual superscript characters. Your experience will be a lot easier and far more stable. It just feels like you're doing a lot of work to keep things not only manually synced, but also hoping nothing gets changed on accident so that you lose the "superscript" formatting.

I think my conflicting results have something to do with my workflow. My OOB settings in Word use 11 point text (although 12 point seems to work as well). Try starting with an 11 or 12 point text in Word and I think you'll find that it works better. It seems to behave differently depending on the source text size.

Don't know. Doesn't work that way for me.