Chopsaw

Just make sure the roof is over the walls. It all works automatically.

When you are spending that amount of money it is up to you to make sure there is a clear understanding of the work that is to be done. Also it is often a good idea to be on site when the work is being done as there can be communication breakdowns with employees. It is a lot simpler to just make sure everything has been measured before they pack up their tools than it would be to have them come back to the site a second time. From your PDF it appears that they did do the work that would normally be required.

If you go with that then you also have the ability to create your own custom wall toolbar.

Is it that you are editing walls or you need to set a different default to draw with initially?

Just double click or open the wall DBX and go to the Wall Types tab and Select an existing wall type from the drop down listing or define a new one. The other option if you have an adjoining wall type that is correct you can just drag it over the one that needs to be changed. Hope that helps.

That makes more sense to me now. It seems like a great idea to simplify macro's like the recently added function of macro within a macro but this would be preset formatting with a macro ? This part I am not so clear on how it would work or the advantages . It seems that the same thing could be done with a mathematical formula ? Or are you suggesting that you could have several macro's using the (1_50) or (1_100) formatting formulas that would be referenced form somewhere else ? I remember that one but I don't think a plan file was provided and I did not want to randomly tinker with my Unit Conversion settings to try to reproduce the issue. Did you figure it was plain random file corruption or a miss guided setting ? It was obviously an Imperial template but the 9' 39" was a bit of a mystery. What tipped me off was the 39" that seemed like 9m, 39" = 10m but was labeled as 10' in the opposite direction but was clearly not 10'. I guess that when I purchased the software I made the assumption that designing homes also included the critical components that need to be assembled to construct a home. I am not assuming that chief is optimized to design appliances or electronics or even automobiles but I was hoping that when a custom bracket is needed for a framing connection I would be able to draw it even if I am not qualified to do the engineering certification. I am not really into dollhouses but the same theory would apply as a bracket might be 1/100 or 1/1000 the size of the over all structure but it seems to give chief a challenge and produce random results. I was doing a cad detail of an elliptical cutout the other day and I calculated the focus points and laid them out on the cad detail with identical length cad lines laid out from center snapped to the same point and dimensioned them and they were not the same. I just don' think it should be necessary to check every single thing that is dimensioned in a plan set and check the decimal equivalent of the measurement and determine if it is correctly rounded to a consistent accuracy and make little adjustments here and there so the people using the drawings can trust the measurements and fabricate or construct what has been drawn.

You can add Technical Illustration to that list.

Rob you may need to shorten your column heading a little more or allow it to use two lines so the other rows will take less space.

Thanks for all of the great feedback guys. It's just another one of those things where I was brainstorming and trying to exploit a weakness but hit a wall. I had explored the macro route but also wanted to take advantage of Chief's grid rounding feature and figured that was out of reach of a macro without an extremely complex setup. Not quite sure where you are headed with your posting in suggestions without an example as I am not a programmer, unless my description is exactly the scenario, but again not sure how a macro would be applied. Yes this would be a rather unique situation and the way Preferences are set up would likely need to be drawn it it's own plan file or cad detail. Also you are correct in anticipating other issues but without the scaling option we may never know, but it seems dealing with the repercussions might be more straight forward than the original scale adjustment. I did not realize I was venturing into such murky waters. Just trying to find a way to make the software work for me without having to buy another program.

Yes I know how that works but feet and inches are not the same as the rest and only appear in the dimension drop down but not in Unit Conversions. Also there does not seem to be a way to get formatting in Unit Conversions the way chief does. The other problem is once a format is used it can not be duplicated with a false scale. You would think a format would have a title or label and not just the formatting symbols. The software would be a lot more versatile if chief did not make so may assumptions on how it should be used and let the user have a little more control. Of course none of this would be necessary if I was not looking for a workaround for another deficiency.

In a sense yes but not in the way that the term is usually used. Draw or model at 10:1 or 100:1 and then dimension without having to resize the drawing or model.

So that the scale can be changed to make the software more suitable for precise modeling of small objects.

Does anyone know if these units of feet and inches can be edited or duplicated within the program or can be accessed in any way by a user ?

There is likely a better way to go about what you are doing but not knowing the reason or understanding the structure I can't comment at the moment. If you want to go about it your way in a more precise manner you can grab the top control handle as you have illustrated in the first screen shot and as you are pulling the wall top up or down hit your tab key and it will allow you to enter an exact measurement for adjustment. Hope that helps, and welcome to Chieftalk.

If you are good at reproducing that issue I am sure one of the pros could figure out what is going on if you post a sample plan file.

There seems to be more going on there than just unusually small text. Could you give a few more details or a plan file. Why is it overlaid on a detail page ?

That is a long way from the truth Joe. Just in the last few years they have fixed some serious bugs and allowed 8K recording. Once PBR gets a little more refined the walkthrough tool will see a lot more use.

The Stringers and Risers share the same material however you can turn off the risers and replace them with Polyline Solids and paint them whatever color or pattern you like. They could even all be different colors that way.

In each Window DBX > Label > Camera View Dispaly.

NO. It is a bug that should have been fixed by now but window labels can be Shown or Hidden for each camera view. Turn them off after you send in a report. Or it might be a video card driver issue, but it has come up before for sure.

Sorry I missed that step earlier of making sure the 'Layout Box Labels" layer is turned on in Layout. You can select the layout box and that layer will display in ALDO ( Active Layer Display Options ) and select it so it is highlighted and choose a different Text Style: or create a new one. As long as you have Layer Properties turned on in ALDO.

Eric, Yours looks good. I was envisioning something like this. Maybe a plan file or screen shot would help.

Great Job ! Do a little reading about the "Revolve" tool and Faces, then you will be well on your way.