MickeyToo

Put the dimension on a separate layer. In Layer Display Options, under Line Style, change it to "no line" in the drop down menu. Then click on the dimension and open the Dimension Line Specification and go to the Arrow tab and change the fill color to white.

I believe it does. But you must change the Orthographic Overview to something other than a Vector View (which it generates by default) before the Cross Section Slider becomes available (Standard, Glass House, Duotone etc.). See the first pic. The second pic is also an Orthographic Overview rendered as Line Drawing, I believe. Hope this helps.

It seems this method will change not only every object in the plan, but also the material defaults for these objects. At least that is how it appears to read in the Reference Manual: Yes? Click the Replace button to replace the selected material with a new one from the library. Materials assigned to objects as well as those set in object defaults dialogs are affected. See Select Library Object Dialog.

Here is something to consider when deciding whether to use the %scale% macro (in Plan) or the %box_scale% in Layout: Send a plan to layout at 1/4" scale. (first PDF) In this plan, a Text Box is being used for the view name (Roof Framing) and to the right is the %scale% macro. In Layout, the Layout %box_scale% macro has been placed under the view name, and in this way we are able to see both macros at work in the same view. Note that at this scale (1/4") the text of both macros is the same size and appear correct relative to the view name. Now, in layout, rescale the view from 1/4" to 1/8" scale, and print (or save) to PDF (see the second PDF). The first thing to notice is that both macros return the correct value; the drawing scale. So from this all-important standpoint, there appears to be no reason to choose one over the other. But now take look at the text size for each macro. Whereas the %scale% macro automatically resized (along with the view name), the %box_scale% macro did not. As a result, the %box_scale% text is now too large for the view and will have to be resized (an additional step). Unfortunately, control of the text size for the Layout Box Label is at the Layer Set level, and not with each individual Layout Box. So in changing the text size for one Layout Box Label, you change it for all Layout Box Labels, which would likely produce unacceptable results elsewhere in the plan set. (someone correct me if I am wrong about this) Just as importantly, if I send my 11"X 17" Drawing Sheet to print on, let's say 8 1/2" X 11", the %scale% macro yields/prints the correct value (the actual drawing scale) while the %box-scale% macro does not. (see the third PDF). This, to me, is a huge plus. I, too, was sold on the %box-scale% before I discovered the benefits, including the accuracy and the flexibility, of the %scale% macro. Unless I am missing something, it looks like the %scale% macro is the much better choice all the way around. 1 Simle X7 Plan-Layout 1.4.pdf 2 Simle X7 Plan-Layout 1.8.pdf 3 Simle X7 Plan-Layout Check Plot.pdf

Mark and Curt, What is essentially being done in my suggestion is stick framing a dropped gable end (the notching being rather incidental). All of the loading on the lookouts will be on the rafter that is sistered to the inside of the truss (and carried to the wall plates), and to some extent on gable truss studding, which remains fully intact. But good luck either way!

Mark, you could notch the top chord of the gable truss to accommodate the (2X4?) lookouts and then sister a rafter under the lookouts on the inside of the the gable truss. And still do the continuous sub-facia, as was suggested.

Scott, don't you recognize your own words? That was you I was quoting in my previous post. So yes, the Layout Box Label text is controlled at the Layer Set level, which means no individual control of the text of particular Layout Box Labels: change it for one, and you change it for all. This has implications for this discussion.

Good timing, Joe. I just found the answer on another thread. "If you want to control the text that is done via the layout box label layer." which is using the CAD Text Style. I'll get use to this yet... Thanks!

What controls the Layout Label text size? Thanks

On another post, a comment was made that relates to this topic. Specifically, Wendy wrote: I often strip a plan down for posting simply because it makes it easier on others if you eliminate anything that makes the file larger than needed, or other things that distract from the problem at hand. When we say "post the plan", read "post the part of the plan with the problem" if it makes you feel better. How does one "strip a plan down" in this way? A related question: How do people on this Forum feel about copying say a custom wall type from a plan that has been posted?

Joe, do you think you could post a simple plan illustrating this idea of placing the basement and (full) foundation on different levels? Also, in following this approach, do you give up the auto Build Foundation feature? Thanks

Yes, very nice tip! And then you can even delete the invisible walls. Thanks

Thanks, Doug, especially for pointing out the benefits of walking through the changes in defaults in the new version. Of course, if it was necessary to create a new template(s) for each new release (besides being labor intensive), then what of plans created in the prior version, wouldn't they be deficient or problematic in some significant way? But that is not the case for reasons pointed out here. Thanks again.

Doug, These are not necessarily reproducible events (in the sense that you and others at Chief are demanding), like a reflex in a medical setting. It is (as you and others must surely know by now) more like an infection that is producing a program-wide slowdown. How do you reproduce the kinds of lags being experienced, such a when opening an object, moving between taps, opening a dbx, accessing the library, or zooming even! At this juncture, enough long-term users have reported the exact same symptoms after upgrading to X7 to conclude that the problem is with X7 and the substantial changes that were made to the program by Chief engineers. Chief needs take ownership of this problem and get to work figuring out what they did to unsettle things for so many of its loyal customers. We have and will continue to cooperate in any way the we can (I have sent in plans, made videos etc.), but at the end of the day the responsibility lies with Chief to figure this one out and arrive at a solution - with or without reproducible events supplied by the users.

Thanks Curt and Joey. The reason I asked the question is that I am being told that the way this should be done is to open a blank plan in the new version of Chief and then import the features you want from your template plan in the previous version - defaults, layers, annotation sets, wall definitions and so forth - into the new plan and then save that plan as your Template. (I suppose you have to do this for each Template if you have more than one.) I did not do it this way when upgrading to X7. I copied my template plan from the X6 Templates folder to the X7 Templates folder and went from there. Do any of you do it the way that has been described to me? I see in the Chief video that Curt provided the link to that this is one of the approaches taken, but it is not being done specifically in an upgrade situation.

When a new version of Chief is released, how do you bring forward your template plans from the previous version?

Curt. That is a lot of dimensioning to get in one plan, but it looks like you have found a way to make it work and keep it very readable. The toning down of certain of the objects certainly helps, too. Thanks for the posting.

Good to know, Joe. It's macro-like in that it automatically updates for any changes you may make to the room (unless and until you decide to convert it to text, as you pointed out). Thanks

Joe, works like a charm. Thanks much!

Perry, I am running with Windows 7. Like yourself probably (and others, too, I suspect), nothing has changed in my work environment to account for the terrible lag I am seeing in X7 except the software itself, which did change significantly (much of the code being rewritten for X7). Dan, when running X6, I have none (NONE!) of these issues (I go back every now and then just to see how good things are with that version). So unless there is "add on software" that knows specifically to "hook onto the system" in a way that ONLY affects X7, well...the problem is much more likely with something in X7.

Curt, is there any chance you could post a pic of one of your (floor) plans? I would love to see your ideas implemented. Thanks

Thanks, Joe.

No crashes, but the "slowness" issues continue, especially when zooming in elevation views, using undo-redos, accessing the library, or just switching tabs! It is very unstable/unpredictable at this point and when these things occur, X7 is something to be avoided (if you want to keep your blood pressure in check!). All you can do at this point is contact the folks at Chief and keep complaining.

Joe, got the same results with the new library object. What exactly is RTB? And while you are at it, what about IAE? I am not up to speed on all of these new ways of communicating. Thanks

Scott is on a Mac, and I am on Windows machine (7). I have the latest Chief update installed. Tried to run it in X6, but as you probably know that is not possible. Be interested to know if any other users viewing this thread have had the same problem. Thanks for taking the time to try to resolve it!