Joe_Carrick

There's no reason at all. Any way to place them linearly works fine. The reason I don't usually use a Distribution Path is so I can reverse the "overlap direction" at the center of the ridge if I want. BTW, This same system works for Flat Tiles, Shakes or Shingles. Usually we can handle those with just a texture and bump map but there are some cases where a more accurate 3D appearance is needed. The nice thing about these symbols is that there's really no need for separate "Rake Tiles".

Rachael, I would just move the Chief Data Folder and your Chief Projects to the D Drive. In Chief Preferences you can set the Paths by browsing to the new location(s) I've been using this for several years.

Chopsaw, Notice that I have 3 symbols. Field Tile (assigned to Distribution Region) Rake Tile (assigned to Distribution Path on both Rakes - mirror for right side) Ridge Tile (Multi-Copied along Ridge) With your "S" Tiles, you just need to add a Rake Tile for the left side. In addition, if you set the angle of the tiles in the Library you won't need to do nearly as much editing and the overlaps will be consistent as long as you don't mirror the them in the wrong direction. Getting the Symbols correctly set in the beginning is key to minimizing the pain.

Eric's solution is one way. The downside is that you can't select the wall in the Plan. A second option is to have a wall type that has no fill and all the lines in the wall definition use the "blank" linestyle. It can be selected in both Plan and 3D Both methods have pros and cons. It's up to you to decide which you want to use.

Another thing to consider is how the tiles are placed. There are basically 2 options: Place one Symbol and use the "Multi-Copy" Tool. This allows different spacing in the x & y directions but can be a bit tedious. Define a "Distribution Region" matching the Roof Plane and assign the Symbol to it. In this case the spacing can only be the same in both directions. I think I've seen a suggestion to allow unequal spacing in a "Distribution Region" which would eliminate that problem. Otherwise the Symbol has to be designed so that equal spacing gives the desired result. It's also possible to use a "Distribution Path" and the "Multi-Copy" Tool to get unequal spacing since each has it's own values.

Here's a couple of pics where I used my Mission Tile Symbols. The are a little more complex symbols than Chopsaw's but the key is to have the object dbx reference "From Roof" and specify "Flush Mounted" My Symbols are tapered so they overlap as they go up the roof slope. Chopsaw's symbols would need to be set at an angle to get the same effect. That would be done in the Symbol dbx by rotating about the x axis. I would suggest about -2 degrees. It would just take a little bit of experimenting to get the right angle.

Cheryl, Look in the Core>Architecture>Cabinets Catalog. There's a couple of Corner Cabinets like already in Chief.

It can be done using custom symbols for the tile which would then be applied to a distribution region. I've done it and it works fairly well as long as the model isn't to big.

Sorry, but that is also not possible currently. Basically it's for the same reasons Michael enumerated above.

Currently, the manual method is probably the best. I've been fighting this problem for some time and have repeatedly asked CA to provide a "Room Context" for user macros. That is the only way that user macros are going to be able to be used to consistently format the Room Labels as we want and match the schedule.

My Roof Planes are all on the level they exist on. IOW: 1st floor roof is on level 1 2nd floor roof is on level 2 3rd floor roof is on level 3 My Roof Reference Layer Set then shows the adjacent floor's roof while the current floor's roof is also displayed.

It's also possible that the "Room Type" is specified as a "Court".

Maybe not, but that's about the only time I might use it. This is actually something that I do in a 3D perspective view.

Sorry Eric, that's not a very good solution - even though CA provides that ability.

Special Roof Reference Layerset is what I use. This Layerset is defined to just show Roof Planes, Ridge Caps and Roof Gutters along with the Main Wall Layer.

Sherry, User Macros are Plan Specific. You can simply select all macros in TMM and export them. Then in other plans import the json file using TMM. I you import them into your template they will be available in all new plans.

Do you need this to display the same in the Finish Schedule? Should the room number include the floor + schedule number? ie: 101, 102, 103, ... 201, 202, 203, ....?

Scott, Don't forget that vents may need to have auto fire dampers, depending on the jurisdiction.

I've done it for another user several times using Ruby macros to read the csv file.

I agree with Richard on this issue. Dims 12" or more should be displayed as '-" Dims < 12" should be displayed as " That's the way I have my defaults set up and it works perfectly. It would be great if when a specific dimension needed to be moved for graphic clarity that a leader be constructed automatically (option) connect to the dimension line. Note that I generally try to limit small dimensions in the plans wherever possible.

That would be my guess but maybe it's just a missing or corrupt file on your system. You might want to contact Customer Support.

What version of Chief are you using? I can't duplicate this so I have no idea what could be wrong.

If you are talking about what happens when you pan/zoom/rotate in a 3D perspective - this is normal because the lines have to be recreated by software. Standard Render Mode OTOH is done in Hardware by the GPU. X9 has alleviated this a bit by switching to Standard Mode while a pan/zoom/rotate is being done - but it switches back when that's finished and then recreates the lines. It's best while working to just use Standard Mode. Only use the other modes when you want to prepare an "artistic" render to print.

One of the users reported a problem with the Counter Tops Package. Basically for a Custom Counter Top with a Sink or other hole, the net area was being reported rather than the gross area. I have fixed that and anyone who has this package can PM me with their email address and I will email the replacement. -Joe

Yes, and it has been requested. Maybe it will be in X10 - maybe not. I kind of understand CA's reluctance to allow Ruby to do certain things to a Chief Project. OTOH, there are a lot of other facilities that a malicious programmer could use to mess things up - totally outside of Chief or Ruby. For that reason I really hope they will ease up on some of the limits and provide much more flexibility. There's so much more data available in the model that isn't exposed to Ruby. If it was all available, I could create a set of "fully annotated" ConDocs in just a fraction of the time it takes currently.