Joe_Carrick

2 hours ago, mtldesigns said:

Can a Chief moderator block or delete the account?  Just wondering.,  Easy to get bye and ignore, just annoying too see.  

The problem is that these Spams are automatically generated using false IDs.  The process of blocking the user is therefore totally ineffective.  In order to automate the blocking there would need to be one of the following:

• Content Detection - ie: key words
• User Verification - ie: subscription, etc
• Point of Origin - probably not possible if they're routed thru multiple addresses
• Possibly limit posts to verified members after a certain amount of time - not sure how this could work.  I think the "Guest" category should probably be blocked from posting at all.  If someone isn't willing or able to become a verified member then they don't belong here.

45 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Please don't encourage Chief to require some arcane validation to post to try and eradicate a spam problem that last for half an hour.

It was actually more than 8 hours.  If you took a close look at the posting times you would have seen that they were at intervals of 3 minutes to 2 hours.

4 minutes ago, DRAWZILLA said:

Funny this all started when db cooper started posting.

6 minutes ago, DBCooper said:

Actually, I think chieftalk does a pretty good job of keeping spam off the forum.  The spam you saw this morning was already gone by the time I read this which was only an hour later.

 

And if they are going to remove posts with certain words in them, my first vote is for "golf".

 

There were about 50 posts beginning about 18 hours ago, all purportedly from Dubai, etc.  They each consisted of about 200-250 words of text advertising the sale of "abortion pills".  I reported these to Chief just as I have previously.  I also attempted to "Ignore" the poster(s) but that didn't work.

IMNSHO we shouldn't have to see these at all.  I'm not sure how it might work, but maybe it would be possible to require a valid Chief subscription to be able to post - at least in most of the forums.

I really think Chief needs to find a way to block posts based on content.  Almost every one of the current set of spam posts have the words "abortion" and "pills" in them.  In addition, there are a lot of other specific words that could be used to filter out these posts.

Heidi,

FWIW, it wasn't the unused CAD Blocks.  It was the Symbol itself.  CAD Blocks generally don't take much space but 3D Symbols can because they have so many faces.

8 minutes ago, James-Curtis said:

Currently when i draw a line, it is placed on the CAD, default layer. I want to draw a line on the layer i am working on. 

Change your Current CAD Layer.  

Make sure the base roof plane extends under the areas you want to over-frame.  

Chief needs to know there's an overlap.  Typically if you build the roof planes using the automatic tool there won't be any overlap.  All roof planes will join at the valleys.

10 hours ago, FlynDad said:

What is the largest span you would use for a 12" 360?

20' @16" o.c.  and you can expect a deflection of about 3/4" at center span.

Contrary to what Alan said, the beam over the kitchen (2 LVLs - Framing Plan shows only 1) is probably insufficient and there are no bearing walls along that line to support the rest of the floor joists.  Using standard span tables can work when there aren't any extra superimposed loads (just sq.ft. loads) but otherwise structural member sizing needs to be engineered.  All roof and wall loads have to be carried all the way down to the foundation.  When bearing walls are not vertically aligned the span tables shouldn't (can't) be relied on.

I do some freelance work but I'm too busy at this time with other clients.

32 minutes ago, FlynDad said:

Hmmm,.. the largest span I see is just a touch over 20' (This would be the basement garage span from poured wall to center LVL support beam) and I believe we planned to utilize these  https://structurelock.com/usa/product/x-brace-i-joist/   (or something like them).

Take a look at the 2nd Floor Floor Joists.  You have spans of about 24' and 27'.  Neither of this is possible with those TJIs.  It's not even close to being possible.

2x14's should work.  OTOH, I would design that with "Square Cut Eaves" vs "Plumb Cut".  Cutting the ends of the TJIs would be very difficult.

FWIW, the structural framing plans indicate 11.875" TJIs @ 16" o.c. with spans in excess of 24 feet.

That would be like a trampoline.  It just won't work.

That's just one of many problems with those plans.  As mentioned previously, the stairs don't work.  In addition, Mechanical and Plumbing may have issues in terms of routing.

I would suggest you hire an Architect or Structural Engineer - or both if the Architect doesn't want to do the structural engineering.

46 minutes ago, DBCooper said:

I just made the "hole" a normal polyline using a solid fill and the invisible line style.  This is what I use pretty much anytime I want to create a mask.  This seems to work pretty good unless you need a real hole, like for a counter top or something.

 

 

Solid Mask doesn't work for my purposes.  I need to have what's behind displayed.

25 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

I agree.  It would be nice to have separate control over the polyline and the polyline hole. In fact, it would be nice if we could even control specific edges independently. 

I'd settle for just  the pline and hole being different.   I don't want to upset CA Development Staff too much

1 hour ago, Alaskan_Son said:

I don't think we've actually ever been able to do this Joe.  To get the hole to have an invisible linestyle, you have to change the linestyle on the polyline itself.

Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure it was possible at one time.  I don't have time to go back 6 or 7 versions to check.

So what I did was:

• created a closed Polyline without a hole or fill - solid linestyle
• copy that Polyline in place, created a hole, set blank linestyle, added fill.

IAE, It really seems like CA should provide this capability with just a single Polyline.  This is a very common drafting practice.

11 minutes ago, solver said:

Select the cabinet, select next (Tab) to select the sink.

IOW, Select the original cabinet, then tab, delete.

It seems that in the past I've been able to create a hole in a Polyline and make the linestyle a "blank".  That way I could hatch the polyline but not have the hole itself visible.  

I've been trying to do that in X14 and am not able to.

Does anyone else know how to get it to work?

1 minute ago, tlinder said:

 

We have over 200 template files. If I placed them in every file and that macro changes, I would have to update every macro in every file manually. I'm trying to prevent re-entry.

So in each system just set the additional LOAD+PATH as a separate line in the Ruby dbx.  It's that simple.

That bug should have been fixed by a later update.  Check for updates in your digital locker.

5 hours ago, jasonn1234 said:

Although tutorial.rb is distributed by CA so it will be overwritten on installation, probably ok for testing but not long term

Yep, every time there's an update or new version.  That's why it's not a good idea.

For rb files that you wish to use in multiple versions of Chief you will need to make sure you copy them to the current version's $LOAD_PATH.

-or-

put them in a common file and edit the $LOAD_PATH in the current version of Chief.  I'm pretty sure you can have multiple paths separated by simi-colons

8 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

 

Neither of these things are true.  You can indeed define and call a method with no arguments, and if the file is a valid rb file located within the $LOAD_PATH, you can even have a Safe Level of 4 and it should still work.

Agreed- except that AFAIK, Chief's default Safe Level has always been 2

I do have some macros that create, read and write files.  Some of those require a Safe Level of "0".

You probably need to set the Ruby Safe Level to 1.  CA by default sets it at 2 which doesn't allow some things to work.

I think there's a bit more that needs to be done to make it work correctly:

Macro: In CA

require 'scope1'

my_method(length)

Output: from text stored on a local drive

def my_method(x)

   rafter_length = (self.to_f.round / 12) + 1

   convert_to_int =  rafter_length.even?

   case
      when convert_to_int == true
        result = rafter_length

      when convert_to_int == false
        result = rafter_length +1
    end

end

Unless I'm wrong, the parmeter length needs to be passed to my_method in order for the method to know what's being analyzed.  

42 minutes ago, Michael_Gia said:

What is the advantage with your method?

I just find it easier to have Saved Plan Views with the appropriate defaults and layer sets.  That's what I send to Layout.

In addition, for Details, Elevations, Sections, etc I find it easier if my drawing sheets sizes for those items are sized to fit uniformly within my layout border.  It's much easier to arrange them by snapping to one another.

I am aware of your method but I don't like having to go thru each sheet in the Layout to make sure the Defaults, Layerset and any Reference Layersets are properly specified.  Saved Plan Views sent to Layout take care of all that.  Actually I don't think your method deals with "multiple reference layer sets" on separate Layout pages.