Alaskan_Son

Using the material painter on all of those objects changes the material settings exactly the same as it would if you were to open the object and change via the Material tab. The main difference is that a person could potentially use the Blend Colors With Materials tool, but it still changes the material being reported.

I think there's a very important distinction to be made that separates the normal Template method from the Save As method and it applies not only to Chief but to many other programs as well... In a normal Template method, a person sets up a file so that it has all the various settings they might want for a given purpose and to include any elements that they might want in all future files. In a Word document for example this might include a specific font and font size, there might be a specific header, a letterhead, a specific footer, a date, a signature line, etc. In an Excel file this might include some specifics rows and columns, some specific numbering formats, a header, a footer, etc. In Chief, this would typically include some specific default settings, some specific Plan Views and Layer Sets, some commonly used CAD Details, some pre-set cameras, maybe some pre-populated CAD work and annotation objects, and maybe even a handful of 3D objects that are typically used with every project. The files are specifically saved and managed as template files and new files are created using those aforementioned templates. With the Save As method, a person simply uses an existing project and changes the name. Typically, any unwanted elements are deleted, changes are made to settings as desired, and new elements are added. The big difference and inherent problem with the Save As method is that any and all settings and elements are always carried forward to the next project regardless of whether or not they really should be. This is great if all the changes were good, but this is rarely the case, and the Save As method can very easily result in the carry-forward of unwanted elements and faulty settings, file bloat, and even bugs. My suggestion for most people and most situations is to use the normal Template method. I tell people to keep a notepad handy and as you're working on any given project, make a note of any setting you might want to change in your template file to make future projects easier. Make a note if you see a layer you want added, make a note if you see a Plan View you want to get rid of, etc. etc. At the end of the day, week, or month, go in and make all those changes. This way your changes are carefully considered and only added when appropriate. Your template files will be much cleaner this way, will result in only the changes you made deliberately, and are far less prone to file bloat. Chief even gives us a handy tool to use an existing project to create a Template if you want and it's somewhat of a hybrid approach, but make no mistake, even though you're using an existing file to create a new template. It's still not the same as the Save-As method. At the end of the day, I actually use both the normal Template method and the Save-As method depending on the platform I'm using and on exactly what I'm doing, but the Save-As method has a much higher potential for problems.

I agree and also recommend avoiding the paint tool on walls unless its absolutely necessary. Just to clarify though, I believe walls are the only object that behaves that way with the material painter. For all other objects and materials, using the material painter is perfectly safe and effectively changes that material just as well as any other method. Walls are just unique due to the fact they can get material directives from multiple places (a very handy feature, but also one that occasionally trips up the unaware) and the only one of those material settings that affects the materials list is the Wall Type definition. This can also trip up the unaware though. If you change your Wall Type definition it will also affect every other wall using that Wall Type. For this reason it's important to set up additional wall definitions when appropriate.

Yes. This is how many many Chiefers set up their templates. The basic idea is that you have a plan template with all the views for that plan already sent to your layout template. Those templates are saved as templates with all that work having already been done. When you start a new plan and layout (using those templates), you simply re-link your layout to the new plan.

That's actually what I would do as well. The video link I posted was mostly just to address Robert's comment on rectangular ceilings. There might be some supplementary steps, but in essence, I would draw and distribute the pieces running horizontal to the baseline in an elevation view, I would draw the piece running perpendicular to the baseline in an elevation view, and then I would switch back to plan to finish sizing, copying, and distributing. Last, I would use boolean operations as desired to get the arrangement I wanted.

That would sort of work, but I think a simple on-the-fly preference/toggle would be much better. Otherwise, any shared CAD blocks, blocks in the Core Catalog, blocks in Bonus Libraries, etc. would all be dependent on whoever set them up and there would be no way to modify without adding each one to the User Library. A preference/toggle would solve all these inherent problems and would also address potential legacy issues IMO.

This can be done pretty easily even if they aren't rectangular. Here's a video I made a little while back that you could probably extrapolate the basics from. Might be worth a quick watch if you haven't seen it yet...

The Default layer is simply the default layer for any given object type. It has nothing to do with the Current CAD Layer.

This isn't really even a thing. Is it possible you're confusing Current CAD Layer with the Default checkbox? If so, those 2 things aren't actually related at all.

I can't speak for Chief, but I believe it was absolutely intentional, and I think they made the right call. Maybe it would help to look at some blatantly obvious examples of generic CAD blocks that could be used in any number of different views like a Break Line or a Graphic Scale. If you drop one of those into the plan, do you really always want to get the "Blah blah layer is not displayed. Do you want to turn on the display of this layer in the current view?" message? The obvious answer is no. I don't think anyone would argue that it makes a lot more sense to drop those blocks onto the Current CAD Layer, and I think there are many many other examples that are better handled that same way. This is Chief's default behavior and again, I think it gives us options. The suggested alternative is to simply use the layer that was set when the block was placed into the library. That would be extremely limiting and although I can see why a person would want that for some things, I for one am glad Chief doesn't work that way. I could however put my support behind a preference/toggle for the behavior though. P.S. You might want to re-read my last post. I was editing it right as you posted to provide an example that you might have missed.

Not if you got what you wanted though. What I'm saying is that I don't agree that the layer should "stick" when storing in and pulling from the library. I think it works really well having CAD blocks placed onto the Current CAD Layer regardless of the original layer. It gives us a lot of control. For example, I can create a special Room Label CAD Block that I might want to place in any one of half a dozen different Plan Views. I can store it in the library, and when I pull from the library and drop it in the plan, it will obey the Active Defaults and get placed onto the appropriate layer for that view. If the program simply used the original layer that would remove a lot of the robust control we have otherwise. If we're picking one or the other, I think the current dynamic behavior is just a lot more valuable than the suggested static behavior.

Haha! We could play this game all day long!

Yes and no. There are plenty of generic CAD Blocks that could be argued are far more effectively just placed onto the Current CAD Layer. I guess maybe a new preference/toggle for "Place CAD Blocks onto Original Layer" (or similar) would do the trick. We could all just leave it to what we prefer and toggle to the other as necessary.

Note that I said to block it a second time. After exploding, you'll still be left with a single CAD Block except that it will be on your intended layer. This is a tricky one to solve with any little software changes because its really easy to see both sides...why a person would want the block placed onto the Current CAD Layer and why a person might want the block placed onto it's original layer.

I wasn't really trying to suggest anything. Only clarifying the behavior. Here's a little trick that might help you out though. Before adding your block to the library, block it a second time. When dropping the block back into your plan, exploding it will result in a block the retains the desired layer.

You can still group select all rooms and use the tool though. And for the record, it was already in the edit toolbar. They just removed it from the main toolbar.

Just to clarify, those "Temporary Dimensions" you're seeing aren't actually Chief's automated Temporary Dimensions. If Chief sees that there's already a suitable manually placed dimension, then Chief displays that dimension instead. Chief will display any/all valid dimensions this way as Temporary Dimensions regardless of what layer they're on. It looks to me like you probably just have a lot of valid dimensions on a bunch of different layers. When you select an object, you're just seeing all of them all at once.

Just to clarify here. When you pull a CAD Block from the library, it doesn't necessarily get placed onto the "CAD, Default" layer. It gets placed onto the Current CAD Layer --whatever that layer might be at the time. Also, the sub objects still retain their original layers.

I think it may have been that way since you first started using the program buddy. To be honest though, I either forgot about it or never noticed it either. Also, it doesn't need a backsplash. It just seems to need a lower cabinet.

Do you have color toggled off?

Yes, but it takes a considerable upfront investment in creating an accurate model. This is only partially true. OOB Chief doesn't account for waste, but we can easily set up the model to account for waste just like we model anything. Waste can either be added as extra items, or even better, it can be added to the source objects themselves using the Components tab.

This is true, but you should be able to use Stretch ZONES.

What do you mean by "...create a corner"?

This is a strange question. Let me get this straight...You want to disable your only method of filtering through objects? How do you expect to ever be able to sort through things that are stacked on top of each other?

They took them away again quite a while a go actually. We used to have them, then they took them away, then we asked for them back and they gave them back to us, then they took them away again.