GerryT

Here's a macro you can follow as a pattern. Unzip and import into your macro management DBX then use a label in the Window label field. Edit: correction -- Window

Interesting Thread: I've never used Revit other than I few days demo. But I've used most others & at some point and have seen these delays in some fashion in about all of them. IMNOHO I think it depends on the configuration of your machine. In these programs, graphics is so CPU intensive that it doesn't leave room for anything else to run.SO -- if you have a lot of background services, everything is going to slow down as all of them have to take their turn. I don't think that multi -cores help much as most software services are not written to take advantage of them. Macs have a bunch of background services running. And the older your machine gets, more and more services accumulate in which you may not be aware. So the fastest, most consistent machines are going to be those that have only a few programs and keep the servies to a minimum. % cpu utiliztion doesn't tell you much as the CAD program should hog most of that anyway. You need to look at time slices and that's near impossible except for a expert on performance. IOW, I think only Chief or someone equivalent could look into this and even then -- how would they know what's accumulated on our older machines? The best approach is to keep your machine "lean and mean" - minimize programs you don't absolutely need, clean-up the registry and your drives and keep services to a minimum..Delete or turn off anything not needed. And as always, if you don't know what it does -- don't touch it -- get a expert.

Thanks Bill -- Is there someplace that I can redeem my lone reputation point -- I need a bigger hard drive?

I think this question could best be directed to Chief’s technical support as I believe they have done some testing here. Also this may be very difficult since your always comparing apples to oranges and I believe the hardware may be the key issue which is never the same between PC and MAC. For Example, I have a i7 3.6Ghz sandy bridge PC with a GTX 680 VC compared to a OOB early 2013 MacBook Pro Retina @ 2.4 Ghz w /3.4 Turbo Boast, Haswell chip, and standard on board intel (cpu embedded) video. Both use the same 27” Asus monitors although the mac outputs to the Thunderbolt ports and the PC to the DVI + one more monitor as thunderbolt. Performance is about the same but I give the output quality to the Mac, which may be due to the different ports and the fact that I don’t have the skills to tweak the GTX card. The MacBook is slightly faster on Ray Trace with better output. Chief’s software automatically uses the higher quality GPU. The Mac fan will go to maximum and it will get warm which may affect life???? A disadvantage on the MacBook is that it’s limited to only two video ports (thunderbolt). I regard the built-in 15” display as worthless for CAD. I also regard three monitors as necessary for CAD. I see the same performance diff in 3D Vector mode, and about the same in perspective. It’s interesting that the on-board video of the Haswell chip has taken such a review hit when compared to Nivida's GTX. However I don’t see much difference and therefore some savings in the graphics card. I could be totally wrong so do your homework. I do not understand graphics on the MAC yet. The major difference in reverse is in Network performance with the Mac much slower on downloads. HOWEVER I’ve seen the reverse in performance when using Archicad software between the two machines with the MacBook slightly slower. So the difference may be somewhat in the software and how it optimizes Open GL. This is puzzling as Archicad was born on the Mac. But, may be due to my not understanding how to tweak the video. IAE – I have stated before that the two machines are comparable enough that the difference is purely a matter of preference. Those comfortable with the Mac, will stay with a Mac. Note the MacBook limitation on the number of video ports and the lack of an external GPU. EDIT: I believe, at present that only Apple Thunderbolt monitors can be daisy chained. Those monitors are twice the price with the same performance, so – fore-warned. Also according to reviews, if you put a hard drive in the chain with two monitors, the drive performance WILL suffer. In that case you may want to look at usb drives which have close, but not as good performance, as thunderbolt drives. Unfortunately the MacBook has only two USB ports. Though, you can use a usb extension which works well – which is more than I can say for Windows.

This is straight forward -- Use the gable line tool in front of the window or whatever. -- However this tool only uses the pitch set in the default build roof tool. Build the roof in auto. Then select the gable planes, open and set their pitch to whatever you want. then reconnect each plane with the main roof plane with the join tool. No need for manual planes other than the reconnection.

ORrrr- Just wait until the end of the design - turn off auto wall framing- go to the wall detail and pull back the lintels. No need to worry about different heights. OR Just check Retain Framing for that wall

You may want to do a search on this topic as it has been mentioned before. There is no way to watermark a plan in Chief. All of the posts on this topic just involve various methods to hide the watermark object, but any Chief user could eventually find and eliminate it. As Joe mentioned: I expect that Chief simply exported an image then watermarked it in Photoshop or Gimp. (See Youtube – Gimp is Free) You can create the watermark effect in Chief by importing a transparent image for the 2D plan part and then creating a stretched material for the 3D part. But anyone who has the plan could remove it. So no reason to do as Gimp or PDF protection is better route. There have been a few suggestions about adding password protected layers to permit this feature but were quickly “shot down” by Chief & others. So don’t expect anything. You may want to add your suggestion to Chief. – The squeaky wheel.

It would seem that way -- until you actually use it --- then maybe not so much.

Display Settings Tools - Line Weights

I don’t think it’s a matter of programming skill or the cost of the program. I think it’s more a question of the resources available. Early on, Autodesk purchased the rights to their graphic engine software and has tweaked it considerably since then. Most mid range CAD programs like Chief rely on third party graphic engines via some open consortium such as Open Cascade or Open Alliance – so they are limited in their access to the core graphic routines and therefore performance. In Short, AutoDesk, Bentley, etc. software can recognize the complexity of the current design and take a lot of short cuts to display faster. Chief is “stuck” more with a “one size fits all’ solution. IMHO, Chief is highly optimized for small residential designs and is probably the best, most vibrant software out there for smaller projects —much better than either Revit or Archicad which are optimized for bigger projects ( by cutting corners & resolution details). For its target market, Chief’s graphics and performance are near the top of its field. Spending a ton of money to compete in a crowded field seems short sighted to me. It would require abandoning its present essentially “freebee” graphics engine to rewrite its own. – Huge effort which I doubt any here would find justified, particularly, since it would divert attention from more pressing problem areas. AND, the open consortiums are continuously improving their software anyway. I’m pretty much satisfied with the performance I see. If I ever get a project for a multi-story office building or a factory, I’ll probably use a different program anyway. So—what the hey?

FYI -- You probably know this BUT --- If you have a schedule in your plan it will override the label field unless you uncheck " use callouts" in the schedule DBX. -- So using the %schedule_number% macro in your door label field won't do anything. However the layer door label text style controls both. Soo go figure.

Just re-assign your hotkeys. search on nudge vs camera move -- assuming you have X6

Nope --- ruby scripts are tied to objects and update/execute with them. or a screen update. if you update the screen before saving they should all update. Any newly created ruby script will, however, save on a file save. If you exit without saving the file , the new script created will be lost.

3D > Materials > Create Plan Materials Library

Item #1 can be solved by using a Ruby macro with the macro management tool and the insert into the room default label -- use the upcase function.-- There have been several posts to this effect on this forum. You may want to do a search. For Item# 2-4, I'm not seeing the same problems as you. if anything, X6 appears to be more stable. One idea would be to place as a metafile instead. But than that eliminates any in-Chief editing. The other is to post an example file and let others look for the problems?

Nope -- not with Symbols. You can create a schedule and fill it in via macros using the standard text box and tab alignment -- somewhat. But since Chief does not recognize tabs in macros --- mostly no. Does work well with all text. Most accomplish the above via a combination of symbols, box outlines, and text. -- lots of work. Or do it in Excel and import as a image or meta file.

i believe that was pointed out in my post and in Chief's material list which uses 37+'. but that's still wrong in practice since whole courses must be calculated, not lengths.

Took a look at your plan and the stucco area cal appears to be correct, the block cal is obviously wrong. Both appear to use area cals, which for blocks is incorrect as whole courses must be used instead. However, this points out why all other CAD programs allow the user to determine the formulas used for material cals. Specific cals are always open to debate and a matter of preference. In this case, the programmer just took the easy route. Not right but not wrong either. The real problem has always been that Chief has refused to reveal what formulas it uses and will not allow user access to its internal data. So you can never be sure of the accuracy of its cals since you really don’t know what input is being used. I have suggested (many times) that Chief allow user access to data and allow an optional user macro to do material cals. This would allow each to know exactly how cals are made and to tailor them to their own preference. – Not going to happen – so beware – makes all Chief cals suspect and really lowers the value of the program. CMU #2.plan

Use the "Online Support Center" link below. -- But your argument seems pretty weak since you did not post your plan here -- Most will assume you made a mistake in with the specs in your "groundface brown" wall. If you want a meaningful response --- POST THE PLAN -- If that is your intent?

The data imports OK for me? Did you select? Format --- # x y z desc (space) units -- mm -- I assume? -- Proper x, y, z corr - they look like diff units for z ? remap to 0,0 point & locate terrain accordingly? Without remapping the points will come in outside the terrain.

FYI --There's no advantage to using a macro as those macro's use the same functions as the normal Chief footage. Just a matter of preference. Standard cals.,unfortunately, are not very constant in that they cal to outside on the outside living area and center to center on the inside.--- mostly. If you want exact dims, as you say, the only way is to draw the internal dims yourself and zero in to make sure they are at the location you want. The room schedule does gives a total area at the bottom. -- Not sure about the accuracy -- but close. The problem is really with the programing of the various cals which are not consistent. Using internal dims would involve too many macros to be practical. IOW -- everything available is a approximation to some degree.

There are two approaches: 1. Just use a room finish schedule and check all floors 2. Use Floor identification macros & global memory

I believe that's hard coded, but might be buried somewhere in their INI file. I could not find anything but I'm sure Tech Support could find it for you?

Not sure what you mean by a "Label Default" Never heard of that. Are you trying to change the view title?? Need more info?

you did not say whether you were using a molding line or a symbol. If you used a symbol the distortion is probably due to your distorting the bounding box and then not resetting the origin and 2D symbol. If you using moldings,then only the molding line shows in plan which will be different than the 3d view because of the depth of the profile and its vertical angle -- but this will be small normally for a 6-10" beam. Looks like your using symbols. Post the plan for more help!.