Larry_Sweeney

This is what support had to say. SUPPORT..........Thanks for sending this in, Larry. I'll definitely report this to our developers to look into.Pre-X14 we had both "Polyline Solids" and "Solids" - often times Polyline Solids had to be converted to Solids in order for the Boolean operations to complete well. These objects were combined into "3d Solids" in X14 so it makes sense the behavior may have changed at that time.What's happening though--or, at least the cause of the issue--is that the Subtraction is causing problems with the geometry of the curved edge of the 3D Solid. When I slid block A slightly to the left so that it only intersected with the squared section of the bullnose, and not the curved edge, it worked fine. This isn't tremendously surprising to me since doing complex cuts with curved surfaces adds a lot more complexity to the operation.What I would recommend is to try to avoid using Boolean operations on objects that contain Arc segments. Of course, sometimes you need curves, like with a bullnose molding! So, selecting object B by its Side edge, you can select the Arc segment, then in the Edit Toolbar press the Convert to Polyline button, breaking the curve into a segmented polyline of a pre-assigned number of new sides. The default is 6 but that can be pretty chunky depending on the angle of the arc. I bumped it up to 12 to smooth it out.I hope this helps, MY REPLY.........Is this a "temporary" solution and is it going to be corrected in the future or are "us users" just have to deal with it. The object I was working with was quite simple, but something more complicated will, I think, be much more difficult to deal with. SUPPORT.........We tend not to treat any issue as something that users will just have to "deal with." I suppose in my initial reply I should have said "What I recommend *for the time being*--".As for if/when it will be resolved, like many issues the best answer we can give is a diplomatic one; I've submitted this issue to our developers and they will have to look into the cause and prioritize how important it is to fix--that is not to say, "should it be fixed?", but rather "how soon?" Please know that every single issue reported to us are given attention; addressing them, however, is a matter of prioritization and resource allocation. I'd love to be able to say that given the nature of this issue it should make sense to give it higher priority and we'll have it fixed in the next update, however even trying to give you an educated guess may end up being a disservice to you if it circumstantially doesn't get resolved in what either you or I might consider a reasonable timeframe.We'll just have to wait and see when this gets addressed--hopefully it's very soon!

I sent this in to support this morning. I'll put the response on here when I hear back from support. Have a great day.

I don't know if this subject has been brought up before, but this is the first time I've noticed the "problem". This is a very simple plan. I'm subtracting "A" solid from "B" solid (Plan View). Render 1 shows the two pieces before subtraction. Notice nice smooth bullnose edge on "B". After subtracting "A" from "B" notice the roughness of the bullnose on "B" (attachments "Render 2 & Plan View 2). I went back to X14 and had the same results, but when I went back to X13 everything looked as it should on the subtracted bullnose piece. I either never noticed this occurring in X14 or X15 before or is this a bug and has been around for two verisions and mentioned before since in X13 the subtraction works correctly. Just one other thing I noticed and I'm questioning, with such a simple plan does anyone know why it is so large in size? (8 mb) SUBTRACT TEST.zip

I understand what they are now and I don't have a problem making a symbol, but how would they be shown in a CA plan view? Just draw a cad representation? The other thing is, from what I've researched, the climate is to cold around here to use them due to the fact they are hard to "weather seal". Especially the sill area because of the pivot hardware. Am I way "off base" with my thinking? Would/can you use a pivot door on the exterior in a colder climate?

I live in north central/eastern Pennsylvania. The last three people that has contacted me about design work are talking about "pivot doors". Is this a fad all of a sudden? I wasn't at all familiar with them, but in trying to educate myself to their use and just how they work I've come to a conclusion that for an exterior door in our "local" climate it's a bad idea. I was hoping maybe some of you have worked with them and can "enlighten" me a little bit. Especially using them for exterior doors. To those who have included them in your designs, how do you represent them in plan view or show them in a rendering? My feeling is, that in our climate around here, I should do everything possible to talk these clients away from using pivot doors. Especially on the exterior. Your thoughts? I appreciate all advice on this matter.

Sorry for not answering back to this thread earlier------Easter weekend had me away for a few days. DBCooper................Thank you for "enlightening" me to something I didn't know existed. I've been working with Chief Architect since V10 and I'm still learning things about the program, many would probably say, I should have known about long ago. This "old dog" is still in the learning phase. Thank you again and have a great day. Also, thank to all who answered this thread. Everyone's advice is always appreciated.

I'm just doing a simple flat paneled end wall cabinet. The way I did this one was to make the paneled areas "openings" and then I just added p-solids for the panels. Now if the panels would have to be raised panels I understand there would be much more going on. It would be nice if CA had a dbx. in the cabinet specifications under the panels "custom face" that could insert a raised or flat panel or whatever. Yes, I'm sure, it isn't as simple as it sounds, but when give an option for a "custom face" then give me options. Not only the size of stiles, rails, blanks, doors, drawers and openings. Or at least a way to "throw" in a custom panel and be able to offset/inset it.

I'm making a custom paneled side on a full height cabinet. Up to now I've, when wanting a flat inset panel, just made an opening and added a p-solid inserted in the opening for the panel afterward. I then noticed in the "item type" dbx. for the full height cabinet specifications there is a selection for a "Side Panel-Inset". In selecting this, the panel is placed flush to the face of the stiles and rails with no way of adjusting the panel in or out. You would think if you would have a selection for and inset panel you would have an option to recess it in the area where you are placing it so it looks like a panel. When you are making a custom paneled end for a cabinet how do you go about making an inset panel? I'm sure there are many ways to accomplish this and I'm interested in what other options are out there. The one thing I don't want to do is to apply a paneled door to the side for the "paneled look". Thank you and I look forward to how others accomplish this.

Joe...............Yes, thankyou. I was typing my thread and sending it in just as yours came up. Thanks for taking the time. Have a great day.

Okay, after giving it some more thought (which I should have done in the first place) I took the cabinet pull and placed it in my User library and offset in the "Y" direction 1/4". This new symbol then was used which would "fit" against the recessed panel area of the drawer. I'm assuming this is the work around I had seen in the earlier thread.

Sometime ago I think there was a "discussion" about cabinet pulls not touching the panel face of a paneled drawer. I've tried a search, but couldn't find the subject. I guess what I'm asking is, was there ever a solution/work around to the problem without manually placing the pulls one at a time? You can adjust the horizontal and/or vertical position, so why not the "in/out" position?

Everything, material wise, is set up correctly. Both the pattern and texture are in sync. I did "unsync" the texture and pattern so the texture was running horizontal, and the pattern was running vertical in the plan view. When I sent the elevation to layout the textures changed to vertical. By doing this, I think, the program is telling me it's some kind of bug. That is, unless I'm missing something.

I noticed that when I sent an elevation to layout (first attachment) the vertical line texture on the "barn door" changed from vertical to horizontal (second attachment). I don't ever remember having this problem (or I never noticed it) before. Am I missing something, or could this be a bug in X14? I didn't move this plan to X15 to see if it does the same thing. I downloaded X15 the other day, but I'm having "issues" with transferring my User catalog and haven't had time to deal with it yet. (That will probably be another thread ) As always, all suggestions are much appreciated.

Kevin......"So, of the 137,400,000 housing units in the United States, 9,700 people -- "many of them children" (so we can assume that it wasn't "most of them" -- hurt themselves by misusing common electrical receptacles. Assuming half of that number were children (4850), that's .004% -- or four thousandths of one percent " You forgot to divide that ".004%" over a 30 year period!

Scott................Thanks for sharing. Now it's just the "waiting".

Mark...................It's when I'm trying to do a "point to point" move in plan view and yes I do have that checked. I don't have a problem with dimensions and the snapping for point to point move only seems to be an issue in plan view. In a 3D or elevation view I don't have a problem snapping to a 3D solid for a point to point move.

When in plan view I have a difficult time snapping to 3D solids. I usually have to zoom way in and then I still have to be very patient trying to snap to a corner of the solid for placement. If I'm in a 3D view I can snap right to a 3D solid. Is this a X14 problem or is there a setting somewhere I can change to make it easier to snap to a 3D solid in plan view? I don't remember this being such a problem in earlier versions.

Sounds like a teardown all the way to the deck and start over from there.

I'm trying to reduce the height of each cell. What I'm trying to do is lessen the open space between the top and bottom of the window to the cell's line border above and below the shown window. "richoffan" mentions about "grabbing" the cell handle and that reduces the size proportionally, but I just want the size of the cell's height to change. The width is okay. I'm thinking this isn't possible.

is there a way to adjust the vertical spacing as shown with the arrows shown in this attachment? I've played around with the different areas on the "Attributes Panel" to no avail. I've done other searches, but I'm coming up empty. Thanks in advance.

I've added many different library items, architectural blocks, and moldings to the exterior of my design. With my design pretty much completed I now decided to add the terrain. As I'm adjusting the terrain elevation. I notice many of these items are moving with the terrain. There must be a setting for each of these items to prevent this, but I'm unable to come up with the solution yet. In the specification dialogue on the items in mention I use the elevation reference "finished floor", but it doesn't seem to matter where I have the "reference" the items move with the terrain. I've tried doing a "search", but so far, I haven't found what I'm looking for. Can anyone clue me in to my problem and the "cure"? As always, your time, patience and knowledge are always appreciated.

Michael.................I have some commitments and I'll be away for a day or two, but I will get back with you as soon as I return. Thanks to all for your input and have a great day.

Michael..............My "thinking" was when it was rotated on the layout the text was oriented wrong. I wanted the text oriented with the length of the paper for easy reading. I rotated the labels in plan view when I made the schedules. The problem is the rotation effected both the plan and the elevation views. I didn't think, when I started the design, it would not fit on the paper "up and down" or I would have laid out the plan different from the start. Maybe (I'm sure) I approached this whole "rotation thought" wrong right from the beginning. If you, for whatever reason, wanted to rotate your plan on layout and wanted the text oriented "left to right" once rotated, how would you go about doing so? Am I making any sense. I know I've had way too much coffee this morning. DBCooper..........I "think" I answered your question in the above area.

I have a plan that I rotated 90 degrees in plan view so it would fit on my paper size in layout. In doing this I rotated my labels 90 degrees in plan view so they were also property oriented. When I did my elevations all my labels are now oriented incorrectly and no matter what I change in my label options I can't get the elevation labels to rotate. What am I not doing correctly? Isn't there a way to rotate the elevation labels and not effect the plan view labels? Should I have not rotated my labels when I rotated my plan view 90 degrees? I'm sure I'm missing something very basic here. As always, any and all advice is very much appreciated.

Ryan..............My "Rebar" layer is on. At the bottom of my screen my "rebar cylinders" show as being in "Drawing Group 1 - FRONT" and my concrete fill in "Drawing Group 21 - CAD, but the rebar does not show. By what the Drawing Group order is showing the rebar should show. It just puzzle's me. I made a simple plan drawing a cylinder and then in elevation I drew a standard polyline with concrete fill across the cylinder. All items were Drawing Group 21 - CAD. Even the cylinder, which was covered by the concrete fill. I moved the concrete fill Drawing Group back one class and the cylinder showed. In my original plan I'm working on the cylinders I have as #4 rebar are in Drawing Group 1 - FRONT. (?) Go figure! How they got in Drawing Group 1 I have no idea. I'm not sure why/what is going on here, but for now I'm just going to cheat and draw a filled p-solid as representing the rebar and move on. I appreciate your input. Have a great day.