MarkMc

Make an annotation set with the defaults you want, then have that selected before doing detail from view. Or use it when creating a new detail from scratch.

No idea about the other plan but worth noting. Opening the camera at the bottom takes north of 50 seconds to get to a missing file dbx, then slogs again if those are not altered. BUT IF you go into plan materials, purge, then merge the few remaining duplicates then open the camera at the bottom it takes a tad over 7 seconds including getting out of the missing. file DBX. Oddly the file size grows?? Delete the robe from the purged file and the time drops down to 4 seconds. All times are after closing Chief and reopening.

Drop the soffits that you used to make sloped beams by 3/4". Delete the soffit along the window wall. Copy and paste one of the sloped beams. Move it against the fridge wall, resize it to the depth of the soffit you deleted then drag it along the window wall. That will fix all but the soffit over the fridge. I'm not sure about that one but the first issue is the roof planes above have a hole in them and don't meet properly. Fix that and then work on that other soffit. Might need to make it from a psolid to get what you want but that won't work with the roof and hole in the wall behind it.

Chopsaw answered this already. I just wanted to add to Alaskan_Son's excellent advice on using the Help. The answer to this question was found in a few seconds since I already had help open (often the case) That was found using the search function in Help, a lot more efficient than a web search unless you've run into a quirk (in which case I just search the forum) I open help when working on something I don't do a lot or when having a bad CRS day. Note that the search tab stays open to the last search even when the main window opens to contect sensitive help (as Michael described) also note drop downs for your help history and instant access to Chief Web support for those who want a video, Guess I should have pointed the arrow at where you click instead of to the web so click under the text to open the web (CRS)

Open symbol, options, inserts into wall, set depth. It will frame as well.

I see Mick noted this and I got a message from a friend at Chief that the ALDO was added to Interiors Version in X12. OTOH didn't realize that wall material regions are NOT included, surprising. Win one lose one ;-> I understand what Michael suggests, and personally think everyone should bite the bullet and get Premier....BUT from what I know after 20yrs dealing with KDs I'm not sure that whole list applies to most. BOTTOM LINE- Majority of KDs- Typical project is a single room, mid range cabinets or lower (the conglomerates?), occasional custom cabinet, sell 2 or more kitchens a month on average? zero interest in being a power user (what's that ? -Interiors will suit your needs just fine. You get great stability, renderings, ease of use, and final drawings. The first project I did in Chief Interiors involved an entire house so you can still move upward (combined with some other software for that). You can always upgrade; just remember that is a bit painful$ when you do. The other 20%?- multiple rooms per project, collaborate on new construction, design full remodels, upper middle to full custom cabinets, fewer projects, higher dollars, maybe want to be a power user? Premier (and stay on SSA !) used to it's fullest you can to attract more. (IMO if in this group and not using Chief well....)

Just checked the comparison chart-two other things-Ruby scripting is limited. I don't know what that means but I would not be happy. Also you can't use reference display of other plan files. I'd mentioned that we no longer need a CAD mask to show existing structure on demo plans earlier but the method to do that is referencing another plan. That only matter if you are ever moving walls or doing additions. It just depends on what you do, how you work and where you want to go.

I'm saying there are two features that matter. Yes I think they are worth the difference but you need to decide, it's your $$. Is your trial version Premier? or Interiors? IF it is Premier look at the ALDO, then turn it off and work without it. CAD detail from view- While we no longer need it to do as builts go and search the forum for some of what Alaskan_Son says about using detail from view and see if it is something you need. In the PDF files I showed you all of the detail cabinet drawings that needed to be sent to the MFR were done using it. Sure you can work around it. The rest you won't miss all that much. With the current sale Premier costs what Interiors usually does. Upgrade later and you are likely tacking the upgrade cost on top of SSA.

The things you list will all be the same for both. The difference between the two versions is less than it once was. The two biggest things missing from interiors that I see are ALDO- the active layer display. There is another way to deal with that, just not nearly as efficient.(caused the only client I had on Interiors to upgrade) CAD detail from view. Most useful if you need to send drawings of custom cabinets but has other less obvious uses for productivity. I started with Interiors back when the difference was greater. When I first realized it was a mistake for me I'd already used the difference elsewhere since. Took a while to budget the upgrade. I've never regretted upgrading. Support costs the same for both.

I try to limit needing to drill down or to click around multiple places. To that end, like others, the majority of my work is in the user library. Things I do I rarely copy an entire folder from elsewhere. The ones I do have are things like lines, fills, walls; items that rarely change and I likely want most of the folder. limit nesting of subolders as much as possible-one level cuts down on rummaging. Since most of my work is remodel and interiors I have a lot of categories that others might not have and those are where I need to go most often. So there is a folder "structure" with the typical sub-folders for working on that-doors, walls, window etc. I could see doing the reverse if I were doing mostly new construction; having the interior related folders as subfolders to keep them out of the way until needed. When the majority of my work was for the public I took to setting up a folder per project. All the possible options for the job, likely to change, were kept. As much as possible all defaults were specified from that folder. If something changed it was added there before being set as a new default. When changing defaults Chief will always head to that folder first. Any symbols created or adjusted for the project are also kept there to speed up using "replace from library" since it's at the top of the list. Nowadays most of my work is for a few clients so a slight change was needed to that. There is a folder for each client that has a few subfolders for what they use most and client specific custom symbols. Then another folder per project. Make those folders go to the top of the list by renaming them with spaces at the front of the name. (F2, home, space, space). I use "import defaults" often for clients and this helps. The original defaults were set from one of these folders, when making changes in the defaults DBX Chief automatically opens to that folder, even if that folder was renamed. I make or alter a lot of symbols. Since we can't specify what folder those go to when adding to the library they always end up at the bottom of the user library. I always have a folder (or a few) with a name starting with Z. I can quickly clear out what is not categorized yet into that folder and can also get to the bottom of the list quickly by selecting any User folder and typing "Z" (just make sure it is not set to rename before typing damhikt Last and perhaps most important is avoid letting things get out of hand. I'm in the process of clearing, cleaning and re-arranging a bit of a mess caused by custom symbols and it takes forever to sort those.

Yes, you will need to make 3 custom door symbols. Actually you can make just two-top and the middle. Then copy the top one and flip it in the open symbol DBX, rename it. I'll put something together a little later if you need more.

Here are the critical settings in the dimension default being used for that. You can locate other objects as well if need be.

The system I describe above would be based on cabinet label, height and width-also included in the schedule. The top row height is just for safety/reference though it could likely be used in the look up. Copy the schedule, paste into the the template-associated cells would do the look up would read in adjacent cells the sizes. It could even give you rails and stiles. Specials would have to be edited and the lookup could be set to specify that in the adjacent cells based on the S in the label. Until Chief gives us an attribute/collection for opening sizes in Ruby I would not trust anything other than manual take off. But as I said learning and setting up lookup arrays to begin with takes a lot of time unless you are already familiar with them so only worth the effort if sufficient volume is required. There is also the poor man's version of Cabinet Vision- eCabinet. I believe a few folks on here use that.in conjunction with Chief though I've never tried it. Back when I did this there were a couple of free or really cheap simple cut list applets out there.

So I when I built cabinets it was a one man shop most of the time, so volume was small. I could do sizes for a kitchen in well under an hour. (When I built other things there was a fluctuating staff so I was responsible for setting all dimensions, often to more severe tolerance than cabinets.) IF running a shop with say half a dozen workers and one person responsible for dimensions which is best practice. IF the volume warranted some automation to get the size of face items then I'd - use a schedule have an OIP filed for top drawer height set in the default note any cabinet that was off with an S prefix then set up a spreadsheet template using lookup arrays That would give completely accurate sizes for 90-95% of cabinets and indicate that any cabinet designated Special needed to be adjusted. You already need to enter appliance opening sizes manually so add those to an OIP field when you look them up. A lookup array will be far easier to manage and create than what would need to be done using Ruby unless ALL your reveals are identical. Now learning how to do that in a spreadsheet can be a bit daunting but not nearly as daunting as Ruby IMO having done both. There is another problem with the ML. When doing hi-end cabinets, and you get around to hacking them to be correct in 3D, you will end up with "doors" that are not doors since that is the most useful item to hack a cabinet with.

Every supplier of frameless cabinets I've ever worked with uses 1/16" reveal on each side. Vertical reveals vary by maker AND on a single cabinet from 0" at the bottom up to 1/4" at the top. Chief does not allow for a reasonable method to make varied reveals on a cabinet so pick one. The OOB templates for frameless uses 1/16th. But let's go ahead and switch to 1/8" so that the vertical reveals are better That will make the drawer heights correct IF all vertical reveals are to be the same (never have seen that but what the hey). Now the reveal between cabinets is 1/4" the elevations and renderings are wrong and the door widths are too. For inset cabinets Chiefs clearance is 1/16th with no way to alter it. That will be incorrect for most makers. (at least don't ask your local cabinet maker to hold a clearance of 1/16 on insets) A built in increase in size per "some" items of 1/32 is not acceptible to me, particularly on frameless cabinets. As you point out the slightest tweak or other error...no need to have one built in-not very functional. I order cabinets by overall size, specify openings & alignments, and include accurate drawings. I would never specify door or drawer head sizes specifically. Fit and tolerances are the responsibility of the maker, always. That's how it was when I made things. IF I were building them myself and needed sizes I'd determine them the way I did when I built cabinets. Without automation, fast enough at the scale of work and 100% accurate.

Frame and sash for what I did, took a couple of minutes. RO after the fact according to mfg specs, has no effect on the window size, only framing.

How about just altering a Chief window to match the specs?

No not yet, just saw it since I don't ever use it that aspect of the ML. Everyone I've ever ordered from works from openings and/or specs like "align with" which avoids any problems. I was going to go over the panel collection again since that is worse than the ML and then send that in. It does not update at all relative to a change in the cabinet. Was wondering if for some reason ruby did not update? Only checked that in the TMM though since I don't really know how to access collection parts properly. May work on that when I get some time. The thing I found with the ML, the ones I posted, were set to 1/16 reveal, typical for frameless (aside from top and bottom reveals which vary) That leads to the creation of drawer heads that measure 32nds. Once rounded to 1/16ths they don't add up properly. We don't have control of overlay or specific door/drawer sizes, only reveal. I tried working with blank areas instead but checked that in the panel collection. Will check that in the ML later but I in the long run don't intend to switch to fussing with making reveals from blank areas. As I said I need openings anyway.

Still has problems in both the material list and the "panels" collection from what I've seen checking earlier today.

I was on the Garys (now Kevins) 2020 forum for many years, followed it a bit after I dropped the program. It's been a while since I looked though. If you are not a manufacture then I would not mess with Cabinet Vision. The extra things in Chief can actually come in handy eventually. Some things like how fast and easy it is to create a basic structure can also help sell jobs, helps more on hi end jobs. What's my kitchen look like from the front door? Show the kitchen in context including adjacent rooms is like falling off a log. Stairs, ceilings, floor levels -no comparison in 2020. Create demo plans, quick work with layers, create custom symbols on the fly,...The aforementioned CAD Detail from View. When I was using 2020 I had to jump through hoops to get an editable dwg of an elevation. Piece of cake... Set up is not all that bad, and the learning curve is better than when I started :) I've said this before-if you are doing anything other than bang em out box store kitchens or baths there is simply nothing better than Chief, not even close. While I don't really update (or care about) my website here are a couple of links to old PDFs that might help deciding. Both have a number of custom items in them. The Ridgefield job is beaded inset fro QCCI. The Manhattan job started out as just a modest kitchen but ended up spanning a number of years. First supplying drawings for the entirely at the request of the contractor (some are included there) eventually several other projects-in part because I was using Chief. I closed the showroom a couple of years ago and now I work for designers & builders around the country-thanks to Chief. Yeah-I drank the Kool-Aid :)

Besides the suggestions above... To get the objects on different plans, first save as (say structure) then new blank plan (symbols). The easiest to now move things is to use the all layers off set, then turn on the layer(s) with the objects; usually fixtures and furniture? CUT and paste, hold position to new plan "Symbols". Go back to your structure plan and start setting up reference sets- To access the symbol plan as a reference (or any other plan) it MUST BE OPEN.

Careful. Chief has it's own way of calculating those sizes and it rounds them. In the attached the sizes add up to 31-1/2" which is the height of the face of the cabinet. If reveals are included the drawers no longer fit. That said I switched from 2020 years ago and have managed to find simple enough and adequate ways to spec custom cabinets and other casework so that it gets built to what I want. If you are personally building the cabinets I'd think it would still help a lot. While once upon a time I built cabinets that was before the days I worked with 2020 so never tried to get that information out of it. It was because of 2020's inability to create the range of cabinetry I needed that I switched. Switching to CA was one of the best things I ever did in that regard. When I built them I had a few simple programs I used for cut lists. If I were a manufacturer I'd be using CabinetVision or similar. At the scale I built IF I wanted more info than I could get from a CAD detail I'd be setting it up in custom Object Information Fields with macros, storing cabinets in the library (or in style palettes) and adjusting the occasional complete odd cabinet (in conjunction with a CAD detail from view-which is one feature you will want which means get the Premier version, not Interiors !!!)

I recently had a plan with a lot of symbols (furniture mostly), I saved two copies of the plan; one with all the furniture and one with none of it. Then worked in the plan without furniture and used reference display. I would update the first plan with changes from time to time. This works well for plan views, some improvement in standard rendering. Doesn't help elevations or other rendering technique (well glass house). I also saved PBR cameras in the plan without the symbols so I could use those in the complete plan since I needed quite a few renderings.

I've run into that on occasion. Saving the plans first usually solves it. On occasion clearing the clipboard

Here is a fixture. If you need in cabinet schedule then needs to be a cabinet door symbol. Started with a shelf...