Alaskan_Son

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.

^^^^This

Alan, I may be misunderstanding, by instead of room.ceiling_insulation.area.round(3), why not use room.ceiling_insulation.area.round(2)? Then your numbers should match.

This^^^^^

No need to even create a text box. The Copy and Paste operation will automatically create a Rich Text box anyway.

Kevin, I sent you a PM.

The options we have for controlling exactly what gets calculated by the Material List and how those items get calculated are some of the most robust controls for anything we have in Chief. I really don’t have the time to type it all up, but everything you’ve been asking about with regard to the Material List is totally doable. I sent you a PM, but give me a quick call when you’re in front of the computer and I’ll give you a few pointers on-the-house.

There should be no reason to check Bearing Wall for the scenario being discussed. All that should be necessary is Create Wall/Footing Below. Also, I would definitely recommend against checking either of those settings across the board. It should done for the walls where you specifically want a foundation wall and not anywhere else, simply selecting all railing walls or changing the default are both just asking for problems.

Don’t forget that there are commonly plumbing, gas/fuel, and mechanical codes that also govern many of these things and that almost always override anything you might find in the general building code.

Not sure when Chief implemented this, but I just recently found that Chief started allowing us to execute single lines of code right inside any data entry field where macros are accepted. Not sure if this happened with the initial X12 release or in the latest update. It's pretty cool though so I figured I'd throw it out there...