Alaskan_Son

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!!!!

Can you be a little more specific with what you're drawing? If you could possibly draw those polylines with walls for example, then you could just place a text box in the resulting rooms and they would work exactly like you're requesting.

This^^^^

That particular example looks relatively easy. I doubt I would use the stair tool at all though. I’d probably model the entire thing with solids if it was for fabrication drawings.

Oh, I see. Talking about plan view lines. I missed that.

You have to set Material Regions to Cut Finish Layers Of Parent Object if you want it to do so.

It actually has a lot more useful purposes than that. Its always used for temporarily deleting surfaces, but in addition to using it to create symbols, it can also be used to investigate/troubleshoot you plan where you might want to delete surfaces to see (or maybe select) geometry behind them, it can be used to temporarily delete surfaces in order to create a CAD Detail From View without undesirable geometry in that view, and it can be used to temporarily remove surfaces for a quick rendering/screenshot. A very handy tool though.

Actually, you can do those things. The best method will depend on your end goal, on how dimensionally and visually accurate you need the model to be, and on whether or not you’ll be using the Materials List, but here are a few tools K would recommend you look at. -Wall Material Regions -Wall Coverings -Room Wall Material Settings -The Material Painter The last 2 are typically inferior to changing the Wall Type, BUT, they do allow for some of the functionality you’re after.

Define new NumberFormatter is the easiest and most accurate way.

Give us a quick example of what you're trying to accomplish.

Yes! Entirely possible. I just sent you a P.M.

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.