johnny

Thanks for the tip

Chief requires a user to do things a very certain way - specifically, Chief's way. There are so many things that if you dont do it a certain way, you will be stuck for hours. That said, it can also be very rewarding and fast if you do learn its secret handshakes. Chief is a mixed bag but I have to give it a 10 in difficulty due to the aforementioned. Its been the hardest app i've ever had to learn and i do some pretty complex things with other apps. Flip side I am still using it...so for me its been worthwhile to learn.

Sorry, I probably didn't explain correctly. Attached is a pic of how Chief handles a 8' garage door of a certain style, but then a 16' door. All Chief does is stretch the one 8' door to make a 16' door. Id like Chief to place two (2) 8' "panels" of that design (or any design) garage door to makeup the 16' door. I was hoping there was a way to do this in the Dbx since this comes up often, but I cant see it.

Is there a way to scale garage doors so if you have a 16' section it visually shows two 8' garage door sections?

If you import a standard DWG its typically in 2D - so to the extent you are looking for 2D then yes...otherwise if 3D then not really. There are 3D attributes in DWG as well, but even then I think the best you'd get is a symbol in CA.

Sorry, you aren't missing anything. Your best bet is to follow Michael's advice, since Chief doesn't have a good way to control pattern lines. For the folks at Chief if they are seeing this thread, this is what I think the OP is looking for.

And when i publish the shadows on certain elevations aren't present even though the settings are the same.

Here is another issue...shadows simply not working sometimes.... odd.

Since the very last update CA has been crashing regularly when updating elevations with shadows (for me). Anyone else notice this at all?

Joe, are you saying that those macros fix the following problem with RT?

I'm surprised so many use RT more often. For me I found tables very difficult to control...and I use a lot of footnotes on my plans. With standard text I simply "tab" to create new column and it stays put even if I need to resize text etc. RT in CA has been much more challenging IMO.

I use primarly standard text.

I personally think the line has a "z" coordinate if drawn in elevation or section. In other apps I use a line is a line in 3D space no matter what view. Overall this alone isnt a huge deal though as others mentioned.

I agree - it should be Z, but regardless Chief should have it consistent. This is my point Larry -

...it should be odd that Chief isn't consistent with itself, and that should be an obvious problem. To move that same line with the move tool one uses the "Z" coordinate, and yet its the "Y" coordinate in the line specification Dbx - all in the same view. AND we are talking about all known apps i've used that keep X/Y/Z movement standard. Live sections are not 2d. If it was as simple as this one feature (or even a handful of features) then it wouldn't be a big deal. Unfortunately this app is plagued by oddities in which the sum of those oddities do become a big deal. I see similar posts all the time by you about these issues.

Yeah I am realizing that with Chief...which is kinda odd since other apps you move items in 3D space no matter your view orientation (like Sketchup you have global X/Y/Z in all views represented by colors). In Chief if you set a 2D view of your 3d model its as if the X/Y for 2d only. However, there is an inconsistency with Chief in this regard. If you have the same line you are using the "Y" to get your "Z" value, but then you go to do a "move" operation, you must insert a "Z" value and NOT a "Y" value to move along that axis. So in one window the line is set by the "Y" value and the other you move it via the "Z" value.

Psolids and other objects that have options to relative or absolute elevation settings.

More than one way to skin a cat (odd expression). There are several ways to mitigate placing a notch in a stringer - Simpson strong tie etc to reinforce the notched section. It will require a letter from an engineer most likely for you to do something like that. You might even get away with sistering dimensional lumber to fix- but depends what your conditions are. ...but as Michael and Alan said its just notching the stringer is a bad idea.

If you want the more detailed version you can simply copy and past on top of the wall section and extend or retract the area you need to fit. However, if you are printing that section 1/2" scale or below its probably not worth it.

You may be seeking Chief to "frame" that detail, but there is no way I know to frame it correctly in Chief unless you manually place framing members. A pony wall method would only give you a different wall thickness in that area, when in fact that framing is typically added once the wall is framed. Personally, id use a material region. I love that tool, and it breaks the siding layer of the main wall.

Is there a way to set my default plan so that certain things are absolute?

Interesting. Yes, it shows the Psolid @ 121 3/4" - which seems correct. This led me to see that there is a floor elevation ref, and changing to absolute works. However, that makes little sense since my floor is set to 2x10 joists etc etc...so that number is just all together wrong. Got it working though.

Ill add the fact I realize I can move the line using the Y value, but why doesn't that value match the the poly solid value for "z"???? This makes no sense to me.

I've seen scott use normal lines in section to get the Z height of the line. However, all it lists is the X/Y in any of the data options. I thought perhaps Y was the actual "Z" but that doesn't seem to be the case since I placed a poly solid next to the line at the exact same Y value and it comes up short. Is there some other value I should be using? In Vectorworks everything drawn with "Z" value actually simply lists the "Z" value, so I am stumped how Chief is displaying the values.

^^^^this. its crazy since it would probably take all of 2 min. to fix for them.