Joe_Carrick

Terry, I agree that Engineers have a tough time with the advances that have been made with computers. The same is true for draftsmen - it just doesn't take as many draftsmen today as it did years ago. The big difference is "Design" and by that I mean the artistic and functional aspects, not what engineers refer to which is really analytical and computational analysis. There are many Chief users who are good at the "Design" aspects of both residential and commercial projects. I personally spend almost as much time designing a home today as I would have 30-40 years ago. It's a little less because Chief provides excellent 3D visualization, but even so the design time hasn't changed much because it ultimately requires my brain and experience. The analysis and decision making process isn't something that computers are capable of yet. Maybe someday they will be but so far it's pretty well accepted that computers do not yet have the ability to be "creative". IAE, In addition to providing superb 3D visualization, Chief virtually automates the ConDocs to the point that I don't need any draftsmen. What I'm most concerned about is that too many people think Chief in itself is a substitute for design. We see everyday someone with a plan that is horrible and they want us to critique it so they can have a better design. That's one way that Chief actually promotes a lot of junk being built. In addition, there are a lot of builders and remodelers that are doing the same thing. But don't get me wrong - it was happening before CAD. Bad Building Design has existed for ages and the only thing now is that it's just easier for the laymen to do. I guess I could rant on this for hours but I have work to do. I prefer to spend my time doing good Architecture.

Michael, Just to clarify. When you display a PDF on your monitor - the display is limited to the resolution of the monitor. When the same PDF is printed on a printer, the resolution is whatever the printer supports. So, you can never get a screen shot that exceeds the monitor resolution. That's going to be the same no matter how you display a picture (rendering)

Michael, You just took a picture of the Screen at a given zoom factor. That's going to be limited to the number of pixels on the screen, not the printer. OTOH, if you zoom in on the Live View you will have more pixels for the amount of the view shown on the screen. There's no way to take a screen shot that's going to be as clear as the printed output.

When sent as a "Live View" it should print very clear. It will depend on the printer selected (PDF is probably the best) but basically, a "Live View" is printed at the resolution of the printer so that's as good as it could possibly be. IOW, don't be confused by what you see on the screen. If you zoom on a "Live View" you will see that it gets better and better as you zoom in.

My understanding is that it's the Printer's resolution". See Dermot's explanation in post #14

OK, I'm going to jump in here and try to explain. The OP didn't just send a Standard Render to Layout. He exported the Standard Render to a BMP and then imported the BMP to Layout. This is the wrong way to do it. He should have simply sent the Render View to Layout (as a live view or Plot Lines) - in which case it would display on the screen according to the degree of zoom but would print without any pixelation or blurriness. Actually, a Standard Render can't be sent to Layout as Plot Lines. It would need to be a Vector or Line Drawing in order to have that option. Please, both Perry and Michael, let's knock off the ..........

I guess I should clarify my use of RT and Text. 1. A great majority of the text in any of my projects is "Labels"and "Dimensions". a. These are all automatically "Text". b. The Text style for these are all controlled via Layer Sets. 2. For Room Labels I use a Rich Text Box with different fonts, fill and border 3. I also have several Tables (similar to Schedules) but created with Ruby Macros a. Most of these require Titles and Headings in different Fonts and Sizes so I use RTBs. 4. For Layouts a. I use text only on Page 0 - everything else is from the Plan(s) b. All the text on Page 0 is consistent for whatever Layer Set is being used. c. Text or Rich Text works equally well for Page 0

Good point - which works perfectly for most Labels. But for custom data tables it prevents hiliting headings, paragraph titles, etc. That's where RT shines.

The way I remember it was that he cropped the Layout Box, then put a solid filled mask (rectangular box) on top of that and a hole in the mask. The hole can be shaped as much as you want, including fillets so that you get an oval or a circle. I do this in my CAD Detail Windows, my Interior Elevations and sometimes in Sections. I don't do it in Layout very often but for a case like the OP I would do it in the Layout. The mask (both the boundary and the fill) can be the same color as the background so it won't show.

No, the only superscript characters we can use at present are 1,2, & 3. All of the other superscript characters require Ruby support for characters above ASCII-255. CA would need to add UNICODE support to Ruby or provide a custom font with the superscript characters 4,5,6,7,8,9 & 0 in a non-standard location. This is something I requested but I have no way of knowing if they will do either.

Yes, "Test".ljust(20) + "This is a Test to show ........" "Test doesn't work".ljust(20) + "This will be aligned with the above" because the first part of both lines are padded to 20 characters.

Are you 100% sure?

Jeff, Some superscript (special) characters can be used by pressing the Alt Key and then entering the ASCII code. Chief also provides some built-in macros for that purpose.

AFAIK, it can't be done. It can only be cropped or masked.

Johnny, The key to using tables in RT is to use a fixed font (Courier New). Within Macros, I use the .ljust(nplaces) and .rjust(nplaces) methods for each column.

To make a CAD Mask, first create a Closed Polyline with a solid white fill. Then add a hole to the Polyline and shape the hole. It's just that simple.

Labels by default are simply Text. OTOH, any RTB can have macros and text formatted, colored, filled, etc.

RT for almost everything

Kate, Have you tried contacting the furniture mfr to see if they have a 3D file?

I think the key is to look at the cursor coordinates (3D) vs the line coordinates (2D) in a left or right side Elevation View. But then, take a section view at a 45 degree angle and look at those coordinates. I'm not sure there's really a good way to reconcile the 2D CAD to a 3D Coordinate system.

That is 100% correct. jpegs and pngs are not 3D so there's no way to import them as symbols. OTOH, you can use them as "Images"placed in the model.

Chief's lines and arcs are 2D CAD - they don't have 3D coordinates. They only exist in the x/y coordinate system of the view - but there could be a point made that when in a Elevation/Section view the vertical direction should be "z". For sure the x coordinate of a line in an Elevation/Section view has no coordination with the x/y coordinate system of the Plan View. I think the reality is that when using 2D CAD you have to look at the coordinates relative to the screen, not the 3D model space.

Dave, When you modify the Floor Elevation you also have to take into account the Room Ceiling Height. I find it's best to start from the top of the structure and work down, making sure I have all the relationships correct - including the floor structures.

AFAIK there's no such appliance. I'm not talking about a symbol - that could be done but I don't know of any appliance manufacturer that makes a 36" over the range microwave. 30" is the max.

What's the outside source? Do you have a 3D file such as SKP or 3DS?