Joe_Carrick

Gerry, Here's an example: The thing about this is that you can open the "Note Callout" and edit the Text right there. The note number on the Plan and the Note in the Schedule are automatically coordinated. Doing this with Tables doesn't provide the same automatic coordination. You could have the wrong number which would refer to a different note - not at all what was intended.

Gerry, Please explain how you can add a "keyed note" to a plan and have it automatically be added to the table. This is exactly what the "Note Schedule" provides. You add one of the "invisible plants" and edit the Name to the contents of the note. That automatically is added to the Schedule.

Gerry, This concept allows a small symbol to be placed at the location in the Plan where you want a "Callout". That minimizes the need for a lot of notes on the Plan - particularly when the notes could be repetitive. IOW, a callout (square for example) with the note number is what's shown in the Plan, referring to the corresponding note in the schedule.

Sherry, I've created a macro %Roof_Label_Slope% and a 3D Symbol that "Sits on Roof" (basically a Triangular 3D Face) which I named %Roof_Label_Slope% - it's an Exterior Fixture. The macro has to be in the Plan and when you place the Symbol on a Roof Plane it has the Label %Roof_Label_Slope%. In order to get the Label to display you have to open the object and click Specify Label. That will cause the label to display in the form "8:12". If your slope isn't 8:12, you can adjust the height of the symbol to match the roof slope and the label will change accordingly. It works - but IMO it's more work than just creating a 2D CAD Block that you can move/copy as needed. OTOH, I think it should be fairly simple for CA to create a Label to attach to a Roof Line to do the job. 2D Graphics programming is not that complicated.

I've been experimenting with using a Symbol as a Roof Slope Indicator and having a Ruby Macro update the Label in the Elevation View. It kind of works but I'm still having a little difficulty with placement. It may be more trouble than it's worth but it should be easy for CA to program such an annotation object.

Good Point, Click on the Heading to sort.

Perhaps a toggle to display only USED LAYERS in the Dialog would be helpful.

True, but how many users are aware of that. Also, for me it's a PITA to have to also turn off the "Show Floors Below".

Todd, Why do you want them eliminated? What harm is there in having those Layers listed? I've heard this request numerous times and so far no one has been able to give me a real good reason. Maybe you can. BTW, there are some settings for Layers in Preferences that might be of use to you.

With larger structures the 3D Framing Views can be difficult to decipher when printed in Construction Documents. Some of that can be alleviated by careful camera placement but it would be nicer if we also had a "Floor Framing Overview" so that multiple floors could be split into different 3D Framing Views.

Todd, I almost never include the 3D Framing in a set of ConDocs. However, I find it helpful during the design of the project to see where potential problems might occur during construction. It's helpful to see where there is/isn't sufficient space for ducts, pipes, etc.

Just select the Schedule, Ctrl-C, go to your Spread Sheet and Paste. It's that easy.

Another pretty cool solution - one that would work great for "green-house roof's", particularly in a shed attached to exterior walls.

Here's my result - not the same profile as Larry's but done using my methods. I would just need to modify the shape of the PLine before converting to a PSolid.

Exactly - but I like what Greg did too.

I think I would do this with a PSolid (drawn in Elevation so it could be extruded lengthwise) converted into a Solid, Then use some Boolean operations to form the miter - explode the Shape and delete unwanted faces. Then I would convert it to an Exterior Fixture. It's a bit more work but with the proper Stretch Planes it could be used for similar situations in the future.

Scott, I agree with you that the ML will never be perfect. I also agree that it's often easier to use a workaround (psolid, etc) than to figure out a way to do the job with something that will be accurately reflected in the ML. That's just the nature of BIM and it's not likely that it will get much better. It may be a little easier for me to get a relatively accurate ML simply because I'm more reluctant to use PSolids or any of the other Solids that don't have building intelligence. That means that I have more Library items available but it also means that when I don't have something appropriate that I will spend more time creating it. The trade off is speed vs accuracy of the model. I don't think there is anyone using Chief that can put together a set of Plans faster than you can.

Work from the top down. Changing heights of the topmost floor effects the floor immediately below, and then changing the heights of the floor below effects the next floor down. I know this sounds stupid, but that's the way it works.

Mick, If you want to change to a different MR definition you need to delete the current one and just place the new one. It would be nice if there was a "Replace From Library" tool for this ---- but currently that's not available. OTOH, you can edit the MR definition (a different color paint for example) and then save that to the Library.

Jon, I've not been able to create anything less than 1/32" thick for a Material Region. OTOH, considering Drywall Corner Beads, Tape, Joint Compound, Texture & Paint all together 1/32" isn't a stretch for what it does to the overall thickness of a wall.

Yes, but it's easier to have 1/32" thick Material Regions saved in your user Library and just apply that to the wall(s). You can have as many paint colors, wallpaper coverings, etc saved in the Library and you would have a lot less Wall Types.

No posted Plan - how can we answer without examining the Plan?

Yes, Material Regions are in the Materials List.