ComputerMaster86

I had a similar experience, I don't remember having the issue in prior versions of Chief Architect Premier. I don't remember for X16 if I was experiencing the issue. But the issue seems prevalent in X17 in CAD Details. Two things for me... I never use the Point to Point Dimension tool (I sort of hate that tool.) and I am always snapping dimensions to objects displayed on screen. I just reported this to chief and included two different plan files with specific CAD Detail examples. I will see what they say. .

Just a small FYI about Chief's "Find and Replace" tool. If the word "Batt" is the output (computed result) of a text macro, "Find and Replace" will be of no help in locating and finding the word. It works as advertised on actual text, or pieces of text that are part of macro code.

I never use that dimension tool and I still get random plus markers in CAD details. Sounds like others are having the issue.

I might be experiencing this in X17 if it's the same issue. I have cross-shaped (+) marker's that keep reappearing even if I delete them. They appear randomly in random spots in 2D CAD Details.

Here is my plan file https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1btgtkvk8e22lwxqdz7zr/Bottom-Girt-Try.zip?rlkey=u8gcrdbbr1xq30ccktfaln76l&st=pypuj35w&dl=0

For those of you that use horizontal framing, what is the secret sauce to getting the "Bottom Run Elevation" to work correctly? Maybe chief needs to do more work on this feature. I have my template set up so that I always draw my first floor on Chief Architect's 2nd level. I am trying to get the bottom edge my 2 x 8 (Bottom Girt "Grade Board") to align with the bottom surface of the 4" concrete floor. I am not concerned with modeling the thickened edge of the concrete for the purpose of the 3D display but, typically I just let the concrete be 4" or whatever thickness is being used. The bottom edge of the grade board is usally placed at the same elevation as the bottom edge of concrete . Chief's level 1 I do not typically use other than I set it to a 42" rough ceiling. 42" is the distance that footings typically need to be below grade in Michigan unless the AHJ requests deeper.

I have my Chief Architect plan template set up to use separate plans views for different floor levels. I have been doing this for a long while now, probably almost as long as I have been using plan views. The only thing I have not done with this setup was use separate layer and annotation sets for different floor levels. All floor levels reference the same layer set and annotation set for each plan view type (floor, electrical, plumbing, furniture, framing, etc.). Each plan view type has its own layer and annotation set. For me, separate plan views for different floor levels seems to offer flexibility and less issues when using reference display. For example, my 2D post / footing symbols for post-framed buildings are usually placed on the main floor level. Then for a 2nd story they are referenced using reference display with a dedicated layer set on the upper level. I do need to think this all through again and see if plan views for different floor levels are truly necessary in my reference display work flow.

I must of also tried the following prompt at some point... "Create a HDRI photo realistic rendering. Keep integrity of original image. Do not change any image details. Do not move or modify features. Keep all colors the same. Add natural sunlight. Keep original image Size."

Here is an image I exported from Chief and tried in chat GPT a few months back... Here was the output from chat GPT... It added a shingle ridge cap to a steel roof. It misinterpreted the porch beam and that was a little off. I used "Create photo realistic rendered image. Keep integrity of original image." I probably needed to use a better prompt.

I played around with Chat GPT and used various prompts and wordings. it always seemed to change things I didn't want changed or made small mistakes I didn't notice at first . When I noticed the quirks you couldn't unsee them. Maybe Chat GPT gets better with each iteration. I just hope Chief doesn't waste boat loads of resources on A.I. and other non A.I. new features have to suffer or be put on the back burner.

I have always wondered about this part. You must have figured out how to modify a configuration file to have radial menus populate using buttons on a non 3dconnexion device.

I have been desiring to fillet arcs in chief for a few years now. The work arounds are a bit of a pain to achieve what I am always after. And then don't even get me started on the fact we can't trim / extend / break ovals and ellipses. I could even go on... More Circle Creation Tools * 3-Point Circle * Circle Tangent to Line * Circle Tangent to Arc / Circle * Circle Tangent to 3 Arcs / Circles Now I am just being silly.

Even though Chief is a 3D program it still has a lot of great 2D drawing tools that make drawing details almost a breeze. They even revised / improved angle snaps (angle guides) in X17 for even more flexibility.

Have you tried exploding the original dormer, selecting the individual components of the original dormer and the n use copy reflect about?

I have fought with this for several versions now and it is beyond frustrating and annoying. I have wondered if this is a bug that has never been addressed or resolved. When using "Lower Wall Type if Split by Butting Roof" Chief doesn't like to honor your chosen wall type. I find it will typically change the wall chosen to the default interior wall type. The work around is to make sure your default interior wall type is the same as what you want for "Lower Wall Type if Split by Butting Roof". If you need to use more than one wall type in different "Lower Wall Type if Split by Butting Roof" scenarios then your screwed.