Larry_Sweeney

I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong or this is the way it has to be. I'm trying to model these 18th century balusters and I can't get the material to show correctly. In the attachment the baluster on the left the material is applied using the same material for both the square areas and the turned areas with the "A" results. I rotated the texture 90 degrees on the "turned" areas and it applied the texture with "B" look. I'm trying to get the grain to look like "C" on the entire baluster. Is this possible? For the turned area I made a molding profile, made a I/16" circle for the molding polyline and applied the molding profile to it. The squares are p-solids. I think this would be the correct way to make these balusters, but after trying to apply the walnut grain material I'm thinking there might be a better way to make the symbol to get the correct material "looking" results. I'm thinking when you add a wood grain material to the "regular" baluster there isn't an issue like I'm having with the material. I have to set out for a couple of hours so I won't be able to get back to any comments or advice for awhile. Thank you and be safe.

I just need some clarification on this matter. For some reason I thought that once a layout was printed it didn't matter that in layout you had a "live view" or "plot lines w/color fill" the elevations would come out sharp in the .pdf file. The lower attachment shows what my cabinet elevation looks like with the two camera view options in layout and the top attachment what it look like after printed to .pdf. Is this the way color elevations are suppose to be? I don't remember having this type of issue before or at least this severe of a difference. I would like to use the plot lines/color fill option so I would be able to edit the extra lines on the cabinet in the elevation view, but the fuzzy coloring is unacceptable. Am I doing something wrong, a work around or is this just the way it is now?

Robert and Ryan...………………….. I'll probably go with your advice Robert because of the area I'm trying to fit the schedule into. I hope that at some point in time CA gives us move spacing control. Dermot...……………………………….Yes. Even with this checked I have 3 or 4 extra spacing lines between my printed lines. I was hoping that maybe by taking the grid lines off the spacing would change. Thanks to everyone for their time and advice. It's always very much appreciated. Have a great day.

Is there a work around to decrease the spacing between lines in the wall schedule without completely making a schedule from scratch? I tried changing the schedule to TEXT, but I lost all the wall type images.

Joe...………………….. Yes, that was simple. I was sure I was overlooking something simple...…….but what? You don't know what you don't know! Thank you for your time and patience. Have a great day.

Maybe (probably) I'm going about this all wrong but in trying to answer my question through searching ChiefTalk search, Knowledge Base, Training Videos and YouTube I'm not getting anywhere. This is my thought process------- I made a note schedule for my first floor. Now I want to make a completely separate note schedule for my second floor. My question is, what is the process? I've tried naming different note schedules for the different plan views etc., etc.. In all instances as soon as I go to "Tools" and dropdown to Schedules and open a note schedule on my Second Floor Plan View the note schedule from the first floor shows up with extra numbers in each of the note labels. What these extra numbers are all for I have no idea. Isn't there a way to be able to start a new note schedule for each floor? If there is clarification on this subject somewhere OUT THERE just guide me to it. I'm sure I'm missing a simple thought process on this subject, but I'm getting very frustrated. I spent way to much time trying to figure this problem out.

Rob...………………………...Followed up on your suggestion. That wasn't the answer. I played around with rebuilding the roof plane framing some more and I finally got an interesting result. In rebuilding the roof plane framing I would highlight both sides of the roof at the same time. When I did this I would get the same result of the ridge beam not cutting. I tried deleting the ridge beam first before rebuilding the two planes and that didn't work. I then deleted the ridge beam and by accident only rebuilt the framing on one roof plane and the ridge beam built correctly with the sized beam cutoff out in the soffit area-----------------go figure! I'm not sure if this is a bug or it's the way CA is suppose to work. Another lesson well learned. I just hope I don't forget it. Thanks for your input-----------much appreciated. Have a great day.

I'm using a 3x14 glulam for a ridge beam with 2X12 rafters. My rafter size on the finished overhangs are 2X8's. On earlier versions of this model the ridge would cut down when it extended out into the finished soffit area as shown in the first attachment. I've made a few minor changes to the roof and room framing below the roof and now the ridge beam is not cutting out into the finished soffit area (second attachment). Is there a setting somewhere that controls this that I might have accidentally changed? I was thinking CA automatically does this.--------------It's been one of those days----------------I can't for the life of me figure out why all of a sudden the ridge beam is not cutting as in earlier versions of the plan. I'm not attaching the plan at this time hoping that it's just something I'm missing. As always all help is much appreciated. Thank you.

Bob......................I have a lot going on today, but I'll try later tonight to put something together.

Eric....................After playing around with a simpler plan I've come to realize that the foundation walls attached to the one I wanted the ledger attached to are a factor in making the floor framing work correctly. Without getting into a lot of detail explaining, I figured how to make the floor platform frame very close to what I wanted it to do with just a little clean up. Appreciate your time. Have a great day.

Eric.....................Will send one later. I'm just now heading out the door.

I have two floor platforms. One sits on top of the foundation wall while the other one steps down 2'. I want that one to be attached to the wall using a ledger. What is the correct procedure to accomplish this? I've search for info on this and up to now I can not find anything for this particular situation. When I frame the floor CA produces what I show in the attachment. When I highlight the foundation wall and check the dbx. "Hang Floor Platform Above on Wall" in Wall Specification CA hangs both "A" and "B" platforms off the foundation wall. I would think Chief should be able to do what I want to do or at least there would be a work around to accomplish it. Thanks in advance for taking the time.

Mick.................Thanks for the "head's up" on the Data folder. Have a great day.

Burr--------------------This means lots of computer time!

Michael................Thanks for the clarification. By the way, how's the weather in Alaska? My daughter lived in Anchorage for 5 years. She never got use to the dark winters. We visited your area many times--------------great fishing!

Dan.........................Thanks for the info. I honestly didn't know my old keys were available. Graeme....................I'm not much of a "computer person". I have a younger generation to do most of that work for me when needed --------------(grandchildren). Where would I look for the installation files and what would they be called? Mick.........................I guess what you say is what I'll be doing. In doing the "transfer" the way you describe I guess I'll have to go to the Knowledge Base and follow their instructions to migrate my libraries, templates, etc., etc.----------correct? Thanks to all for taking time to help the "old guy". Have a great day

Larry........................Sorry if I'm not explaining my problem correctly. I'm trying to install my X11 and some earlier "X" versions on my new computer from the old computer. When I did this some years back when I had a new computer built I had no problems. At that time all the files associated with my "X" versions came along with the transferring from the old computer to the new one like clock work. Eric........... "Do you have the installation file for the older versions?" ................ I'm not very good with this stuff. Where do I look for them? What would I be looking for. Like I mentioned above to Larry, when I transferred CA programs a few years back there were no problems so I'm assuming I had installation files then and if that is the case they should be somewhere. Some of those CA programs I moved then are the same ones I'm trying to transfer now to my new computer.

What sort of problems?..............The CA programs won't open. I don't have the new computer up and running at this moment so I can't tell you exactly what the "message" says (something about some missing files) when I try and open them. Almost all the programs that were moved to the new computer work with the exception of a few. Of those that don't work, most are old ones that don't run on Windows 10 (Microsoft Office 2003, Outlook and an old version of Word). The two that I'm most interested in working are my last 4 versions of CA and Autocad 2010. All the other ones that won't open I'll just get newer versions. How are you transferring?..............We are using "PC Mover" My computer builder has tried several times transferring the files with the same outcome. I was thinking the thread I read sometime ago discussed something about transferring the CA programs from one computer to another. Have you checked the Knowledge Base -- I believe there is an article on doing this. ............Yes, but aren't they talking about migrating files and not the program? I think it was a link that you posted. Please understand, I'm not much of a computer guru. The person that built my new computer built my last one with great success and we had no problems using "PC Mover", but I'm thinking I was using the same operating system on the old and new computer at that time. He's on another project today and I'm just trying to find info that might help him when he comes at the end of this day. He seems to think it has to do with my old computer using Windows 7 and my new one has Windows 10.

I had a new computer built and we are having problems moving my X11 and older versions over to the new computer. My old computer used Windows 7 and my new computer is set up with Windows 10. I don't know if that's what the snag is or not, but I'm thinking there was a thread not to long ago about moving Chief over to another computer. I've tried to find it, but I'm not having any luck. Am I remembering correctly and if so can anyone direct me to that thread? I know I can just download X11 again to the new computer from my digital locker, but I would like to keep a few of the older versions I still have in case I'm working with someone that is using an older version. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you

Francois............................Thank you. That did the trick. I'm safe-----------it wasn't a "Senior Moment"! Have a great day.

I went from two monitors to a single monitor. Once setup using the single monitor, I opened Chief X11 to the plan I was working on, clicked on the Library Browser icon, but it doesn't show up on my screen. The Project Browser doesn't show up either. When I click on the active layer display it does show up. I'm hoping this is just a "Senior Moment" . Can anyone tell me what is going on? I'm sure it's just something simple and I'll really feel "old" when I find out what's going on. Thanks to all who helps out this old fart with advice.

Mick......................................

Eric.........................Thanks for your advice. I will try to ignore it.

R_Cotner2.zip

Mick & Eric..........................Thanks for your advice. The 2" overhang was the problem. That was the setup for drawing the original as built. When I started making changes in the design I never gave it a thought about changing my original default setup settings. My first thought is that the default 2" overhang shouldn't make a difference. I don't quite know where the logic is that that would be the problem to my dilemma. To me this would be considered a BUG. I'll have to put this fix into my "memory file" . Thank you both for taking the time to help-----------much appreciated.