Alaskan_Son

Typically the only thing you have to do to ensure your code will work in both X12 and in older versions is explicitly convert your desired object attributes to floats. So, your macro would just need the last line to read... ConvertToFeetInches(height.to_f,16, "-", "-", true) + "x" + ConvertToFeetInches(width.to_f,16, "-", "-", true)

You were right the first time. It didn't work because there was an error in one of the lines that BT fixed in the follow-up sample plan... dim = $FtIn.apply(obj.width.round(0)) + "w x " + $FtIn.apply(obj.height.round(0).to_s) + "h" #You can't apply the X12 NumberFormatter to a string

Kinda depends on the project I guess, whether it’s something you might use on future projects, on whether or not you have to custom order each pull size, on how many cabinets there are, on what the likelihood for changes is, etc. etc. I could go either way.

This of course could be done as well, but some of the other options could provide for automated sizing.

Yes, but I likely would not be applying them as pulls, but instead apply them as either a separate face item or an accessory. Ya, probably an accessory of one type or another attached to that face item. Could also be done just using custom door and drawer panels where the pull is an integral part of the door/drawer front itself.

Use another framing member and either the Trim tool, the Extend tool, or the Join/Lap tool.

Just sent you a PM.

The height/radius on one of your roof planes isn't actually correct, but that's not what's causing your problem. I'm not 100% sure, but I think what you're seeing is just the result of some hardcoded facet angle limitations. I wouldn't worry too much about how it looks right now. I think if you keep going through the process, you should still end up with the desired results. Having said that, you may need to tweak things a little for your specific plan sometimes anyway. For example: I've found that you may need to shift the start and end points of your manually drawn valley so that they snap right to the corner points (wall and peak) instead of to the line created by your CAD Detail From View. In addition, your ceiling planes could be such that they don't actually create any usable linework at the valley prior to that CAD Detail From View Step. In those cases, try temporarily changing the material being used for your ceiling to get some additional snap points. In fact, this may be preferable anyway since it results in a nice uniform snap interval...

Yes sir. I did. Chief is a little finicky in this regard, but yes, you can get the ceiling planes to clean up decently well in 3D but... -It can be very difficult to accomplish for even a single edge. -It becomes exponentially more difficult to accomplish for multiple edges. -Perhaps most importantly, it requires shifting edges and moving planes so that the results become quite inaccurate in other views--particularly Plan View. It's just not worth even going down that road in my opinion.

Preferences>General>Startup Options. Make sure this setting is unchecked...

It's definitely related to the room and it's something we run into with PBR all the time and one of the many reason I still prefer Ray Traces. Chief just treats object differently depending on whether they're in the room with the camera or not. Even those columns. The reason they're getting lit differently is because 2 of them are facing the exterior and one is facing the interior and as such, Chief is treating them as belonging to different rooms. A similar thing commonly happens with other objects such as doors depending on which room Chief sees them as belonging to. Anyway, don't have time to offer much in the way of solutions right now, but wanted to at least point a couple things out.

My thoughts exactly!! I was thinking of writing up a post and was relieved to find I didn't have to.

No. All I'm talking about is the ability to hover over a drop-down and then scroll through it with the mouse wheel or arrow keys.

Here's a 3 part video series I made on the subject a little while back. I would really recommend watching all 3 even if the first one solves your problem. There's some good information in there....

Yes, but not sure you'll like it. My suggestion is to start a new template from scratch. I see a lot of pervasive problems caused by the insistence on working with an old template instead of starting fresh. You just keep carrying issues forward, and as you've found, it can be very difficult to sort through some of those things. I say its best to stop fighting it and just start a clean new template where it only includes things you need and settings you (in your more experienced and knowledgeable state) have very purposefully set. If you do decide to stick with your old template, in addition to system layers, multiple saved defaults, and other default settings, there's at least one more place layers can be used that I don't believe was mentioned, and that is in CAD Block Management...particularly if you have "Automatically Purge Unused CAD Blocks" unchecked.

I don't believe this is accurate. If you actually find this happening, I would report it.

I remember very clearly because it’s a feature I actually made use of, and it really wasn’t very long ago. I believe it was removed in X9. The ability we had was the option of naming layers differently in different layer sets and it allowed for a good handful for things such as: -The ability to share files a little easier when one user preferred a totally different naming convention. -The ability to use AIA naming conventions for any given layer set. -The ability to append/prepend a layer name with a code to describe its intended settings in that particular layer set so that you could make temporary changes and then quickly filter (using code), group select, and then toggle accordingly. -Some macro capabilities I won’t get into that Chief ended up very effectively replacing with some other feature improvements. Anyway, I thought I t was a useful feature but I do agree that it was problematic for most users.

Can you make a quick video demonstrating this so called “glitch”. It still sounds like you’re describing a completely normal behavior. Just because you’re doing something on accident doesn’t make it a glitch.

I think you’re probably remembering the ability to RENAME layers differently in different layer sets.

Not sure I follow. I'm talking about hovering over your Active Layer Set Control or over your Active Dimension Defaults Control or over your Elevation Reference dropdown, or over your Drawing Group drop down, etc. You can hover and use your mouse wheel or your arrow keys. Been that way as long as I remember. It's a handy feature and works that way in other programs as well. Or are you talking about something more sinister?

I might be missing some thing about what you’re describing Chop, but I wouldn’t call that a glitch at all. That’s pretty standard Windows behavior.

This is one of several ways to deal with it. Instead of simply changing the line style to invisible though, leave it to be controlled by layer and then create a working layer set with completely visible lines. Makes it very easy to see lines when you want to. You can also optionally just turn the leader line layer off entirely and then turn back on if and when desired.

Yup. This is the problem. Chief wants to see them as close as possible to the edge of the glass, but the lines need to be trimmed back so that they're at least inside the sash.

There's no built in automation I can think of off-the top, but you can use a simple macro recorder to either move the mouse incrementally or to enter numbers into the Cross Section Slider dialog. The latter would probably be the easiest. You would just need to do something like manually place the cursor in front of the cross section slider value, and run a macro with the following sequence... Type ----> "+3" Type ----> Tab key Type ----> Up Arrow Type ----> Right Arrow Type ----> "+3" Type ----> Tab key Type ----> Up Arrow Type ----> Right Arrow ......and keep repeating the sequence With the appropriate pauses between keystrokes assigned, it should result in a perfectly smooth and controlled movement (in this case using 3" intervals), all completely automated.

Love it!!!!