MarkMc

I want two lines in the title on the layout page. I want one cell in the page table, prefer one line in table but would settle for two as long as it's one cell. If that can't happen I'll use spaces as you submit OR over write with a text box on the layout page.

I showed what I want, two lines in one cell.

Yes- tried every variation you guys posted. No borders may be an option. I get the same result that way as using the macro. Hoping Michael has some magic- else it's add spaces OR no border OR change the size of something (nah) OR paste a text box over that in the layout page since the page table reads fine.

Eric- Above is what I asked for in the first place. I want to add a line return to the page information like this where it shows up in the layout page like this I'm beginning to think Michael is correct, the only way to do what I'm after is with spaces-which is a trial and error PIA where I started.

Here is with no macro- as close to this is what I'm after, will settle for two lines on page title in the same cell.

I'd settle for that if it's the best I can get. I need the return to fit well in my pages SO I'm placing this in the page title not in the page table. AFAIK I also used two tabs? "\n\t\t" as in last screen shot.

I want to keep it on the same line, I also don't want it to expand into space- here's what I get with "\n\t\t"

Just went to my page table and using any version of the macro mucks it up- makes whatever is after the return macro move to the page column while creating a new line there. Any way around that?

Fairly big difference in performance between the two machines listed in my profile. I had my assistant running X9 on the 15" until he moved and he was ok with it- better than his MacBook- it's now my backup. I found it a bit slow but I don't behave well when working-multiple tabs/views in chief with several other programs open-hey I'm working. Granted the newer CPU benchmarks about 25% higher and the SSD's are faster. Here is the comparison of the two gpus in my signature-you can put in your own choices to see the difference in numbers (still a challenge to translate to real life ) http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-980M-vs-GeForce-GTX-670M Notebookreview.com can be a good place to sort out value but can be a bit to wade through- lot of gamers so some things don't apply. (one thing I have seen in the current crop-the 1070 card is a better value than the 1080-YMMV.) I've avoided, and will continue to avoid, 4k monitor on the laptop-I don't want to take a hit for the GPU overhead on a day to day basis. I use 3 screens working and a 4th with clients all 1080- been fine. Someday I might get an external 4k but would get one at home to watch Planet Earth first again YMMV. If I were in the market for a machine and could possibly wait 2-3 months I would, interesting new stuff coming. In construction, or any type of fabrication, materials are always cheaper than labor. In this line of work tools are always cheaper than labor or overhead. I simply spend as much as I possibly can afford (which means how much I can convince the CFO (wife) to allow.) The two machines in signature -bought the 15 Jan 2013, the 17 March of 2016-3 years apart-first one was $2k, second one I had worked out to $2600 intending to get longer life from it but the CFO kept saying it was $3k when I gave her the price so I changed a few things presto. I don't use a desktop. So the 15" breaks down to $55 per month until I upgraded, cheaper than rent ( or what most folks spend on phones). Upgrade a 3yo desktop CPU and GPU runs $700-1000 -( maybe throw in an SSD perhaps the single best value in upgrades?) still the MOBO, RAM speed, remain the same. If budget wasn't there I'd take a serious look at used/refurb/closesouts that came with a warranty. Years ago I had done that twice with success.

I only use laptops and usually plan on spending 2k, more if I can at the time. It is my primary business tool. Still you can find 17" w 4gb vid cards starting at half that, with 1060 cards at 1300. Here's a place I've used and a list of 17s with at least 4gb. http://www.xoticpc.com/custom-gaming-laptops-notebooks-gaming-laptops-ct-118-96-98.html#!/dir=asc&mode=list&no_cache=true&order=price&size=13&graphicscard=170-162-171&p=clear

I tested it' easily repeatable.

It does if you make it from a cabinet and don't convert it to a symbol- but you have to change the Z origin. It also should if you keep it as 3 pieces and the top is a sink but again you may have to fool with height. It does not if you make it from 3 pieces and convert that to a symbol. I save all my symbol plans so would add it there and make a new symbol, few minutes.

Larry didn't know why you wanted to make it from a cabinet just answered that. There is no way I'd be making the cabinets themselves as part of the top. (see the ps) . I really don't want to have any more complicated cabinet configuration than I have to AND I want accurate schedules. I like Eric's idea of using a symbol, and took it that you just wanted something you could resize. I see no reason to use three pieces though. One waterfall symbols and separate cabinets will be the easiest to adjust in the long run. As to accuracy (which I simply specify with the counter people in English cause that is all that counts with them) I haven't really cared about the miter detail, that said I just took a few minutes and made one in psolids from 3 pieces, converted to a symbol. As to the cabinets themselves: Often when I have things overlap I just send the offending item off in some direction with TM by 110- 200 inches..whatever. Resize what I need and then send it back. Once back P to P, center, and TM all work even with overlapping items. In this case it doesn't appear to be needed. I changed the waterfall symbol to the counter layer. Placed cabinets in plan, resized the counter, and moved it into place. BUT THEN I copied the whole thing, resized the counter smaller, placed a few lines at the ends and turned the layer off, then simply altered the cabinets in place, no need to move anything away. (If that counter was a cabinets it would need to move away) So pics attached, and guess which one is the symbol and which is the solids in the vector view. PS- I went to check the last one of these I did, used 3 pieces but it looks like at some point in all the revisions I got fed up and stopped making the sides. The design group for the job was client, his wife (didn't agree), mother (housewife designer who liked to go to parade of homes), mother in-law (had some friends who did a kitchen), interior designer, architect, and innocent bystander (me). There were more revisions to cabinets and appliances everywhere with at least 7 variations to just the island. After the final drawings were done, the architect who told me to locate and spec the skylight changed it to two skylights, centered them on the room and had them framed and installed -then sent me a layout for the kitchen to deal with that had 30" work aisle between the island and the oven (since island was centered between skylights and there were cabinets on only one side wall the other being windows). I want things as easy to adjust as possible.

IMO at this time there is no need. I can likely get pricing from Chief as quickly (maybe even faster) than I could from 2020 once I have to check it. One of these days I'll finish my label macro's and maybe do a vid (though I hate vids shame I couldn't manage to do it at the UGM then again need more than an hour). People just have to get over the idea that they need it the way they get it now. Besides there is so much more involved that is important and CA does more. The last BIG issue for me is changing brand and cabinet construction. Edit to add-If someone has 2020 (may need to be with a dongle) you can use it for pricing. Just select cabinet schedule in Chief, ctrl+C, paste into spreadsheet, then copy paste items into a 2020 "item list"- though I prefer on line ordering systems where it is just drag and drop instead.

I hope I'm not overstepping here (the moderators can always move this or delete me) I was asked to compare the two programs by someone this week since I have fairly extensive experience with both. A number of years ago I'd written something on this forum in response to that question, think it was around X4 or 5? That was generally positive toward Chief but acknowledge some important weaknesses. Several versions later and the improvement to the program for kitchens in measurable. So since I had to write something anyway I thought I'd share it here. The first part is what I slammed together yesterday morning rather quickly. The second part I added today to fill it out a bit, again quickly so excuse the lack of editing and any drivel included.. The question: Reply and note follow. The short answer would be if you are looking at design build there is simply no contest. There may be some larger DB firms that use both but no one in their right mind would try to get adequate drawings for construction, build, serious remodel from 2020. Where I used to work we needed to do that to a certain extent. Then there were 6 designers, now there are 4 I believe. To solve problems they resort to either CAD or in many cases pencils. I'd suggest that watching the presentation videos on line would be a good idea. Granted from both companies those are as much marketing as real life use. I started using 2020 in 2000, I got Envisioneer (similar to Chief but imports 2020 files) to work with 2020 in 2010. Started with Chief X3 in 2011 so I stopped updating 2020 at V9 but continued to use it as an adjunct for several years. At first I was a somewhat reluctant user and a harsh critic/gadfly about CA's shortcomings. Today I am a true believer. I have kept track to changes in 2020- they have been negligible when it comes to fixing long standing problems IMO. Note since that time 2020 has moved to V11 with a few in between updates, CA is currently at X9 and will have another full upgrade next spring. When to use 2020-if business model is to compete with the box stores, or target primarily budget minded customers, draw kitchens with a minimum number of walls and need to get decent pricing quickly using a semi custom cabinet brand from one of the conglomerates-it can be a good choice. 2020 has a larger market share in kitchens so the labor force of people who know how to use it will be wider. That said many higher end kitchen designers can't or won't use it and look on it with absolute scorn. does pricing within the program - reliability of pricing depends on design catalog, drawing. Keeping retail pricing updated within the program is an art form and rarely done. The advent of on line pricing tools from mfg's makes in program pricing moot unless you run a mill IMO. It could be argued that 2020 protects you from yourself preventing the KD from including items are not available. In terms of protecting you from design mistakes, as used by most operators (who are porne to override settings) I'd say Chief wins. If you are a really good user it can possibly be easier to change brands mid-design. However you need to be completely familiar with the catalog of the brand you are changing to. In many cases operators resort to a new drawing. Stability has improved a little since I used it, however when it goes it goes and repair is not for the simple user. Support still sucks. Apparently there is now a work around that will get back disappearing user dimensions and notes most of the time. Changes to the rendering engine get mixed reviews. Can be nicer, can be more challenging. When to use Chief. Business model is design matters more than price, you care about the final result, better brands of cabinets, most any amount of custom, need to draw accurate spaces/buildings, need detailed drawing for manufacturer or installer, need to move walls, need demo/construction plans, need electric plans. Need to represent stairs, split levels, vaired height rooms (floor or ceiling), any odd type of buiding. Simply the ONLY thing I can do in 2020 that I can't do in Chief is get instant pricing. Single downside is the learning curve is a bit worse though getting up and running to begin with is easy enough. (That said when I first got CA I took an 8 hour on line class, promptly got the flu and did not get near the program for a month. Then drew up a 2100 sq ft house with highly detailed cabinets in kitchen, LR, hall, walk in closet, another closet, master bath, bath, and office hobby work space. Though the drawings are not up to my current standards) Working- unlimited tabs, elevations, multiple perspective views, editable in all views (though some things work better in one than another) Stable-rarely crashes, even more rare to lose much work. Drawing walls and adjusting them is so easy that there is no point in not drawing a complet room. I generally draw most if not all of the floor in question though some outside the area under consideration is approximate. Yesterday I drew first floor of a colonial as built-primary area the kitchen with some windows and such for other rooms from photos-basically show whatever affects views to or from kitchen- in an hour. Changing things- changing colors or doorstyles is far faster. Changing cabinet configuration, custom cabinets, moving walls, windows, doors, no contest. Changing brands has a few issues (I have a system though The main issue currently is the height of the top row of drawers. Presentations-clients and contractors are routinely impressed with just the standard (quick) perspective views. Incredibly fast. More photo realistic renderings take some learning, altering materials is easier than in 2020, getting colors truly accurate is a bit of a challenge. (Paint OTOH from the Benni Moore catalog is nicely accurate with decent lighting for Ray Traces. ALL colors look different in Traces than in standard though. The ability to quickly alter cabinets (or anything else) live in 3D is incredibly useful for clients. Dimensions- I've worked out systems for this that are fast. Automatic dimensions are only a little better than 2020 but far easier to adjust. Adjusting any dimensions is easier. They are also stable (never disappear on you) Drawings- just no contest when it comes to dealing with print layouts. A print layout can bring in drawings from multiple plan files or other sources. Elevations can be edited, views and layers controlled. Stability- rarely crashes, have never lost any significant amount of work. Plays nice with the rest of the computer (I'd had 3 complete re-installs using 2020) Support is superb. User library is always accessible. Save ANYTHING- cabinets, moldings, doors, furniture NOTES, details.... Replace from library allows designing with generic rough cabinets and quickly changing them to things you already have stored. Automation-macros- there are a number of built in text macros and many more available for small fees from some users on the forum. They will also write custom macros as needed. Incredible time saver. There are some things that require "work arounds' a few that are inexplicably stupid-clipped corners is a bugaboo to me. There are a few others, I've worked out methods for all of them that are generally easy. NO PRICING-there never will be IMO. However as of X9 a system to have accurate codes for all cabinets AND modifications in a schedule has become a reality. Getting that information into a spreadsheet or an online order is also fast and easy. Building materials- I don't deal with the material list and from what I know there are quirks with it. However many builders have worked out how to deal with it hence can get a decent materials list for an entire building or part of for everything. Terrain, roofs, stairs- while these can at times be challenging they are virtually impossible in 2020. To sum up- I"ve used half a dozen 2D CAD programs, DataCad, 2020, AutoKitchen (one day), Pro Kitchen, Envisioneer, Chief Architect and learned to draft with a pencil, run Linux, Windows and 6 months on a Mac with Final Cut Pro, have no idea how many other programs I've dealt with (went to school for tech writing for a while) CA is one of the best software packages of any kind that I have ever dealt with. and it has continued to improve based on user feedback every year. I added the following to this post, not in original message. (this is all as of X9) Caveats, complaints Chief will NOT protect you from designing with something unavailable in you brand, or impossible to make. Be well versed in what you have available to order. Framed cabinets in CA don't account for that extra reveal you get so watch out when placing wall cabinets next to deeper talls. If you are not getting flush sides your dimensions will be off. Cabinet interiors (as of X9) will match the exterior and there is no reasonable way to change that. If you are using the cool new open door feature to show clients something and using standard cabinets where the interior will not match be to inform you client. One partial solution is to change the color of the shelves. Same goes for cabinet bottoms- pay attention in case you need to order finished bottoms on wall cabinets. With X9- Chief did a great job fixing nomenclature for cabinet sides shown in the schedule. Automatically finished sides are almost as good as they are in 2020 but have a few quirks. Be sure to check you finished sides before ordering (I set the default to unfinished so I have to) I mentioned that changing brands has a few issues. It is doable but much harder than it needs to be, more so if you want the top row of drawers accurate. That will take some practice. I mentioned clipped corners. A few years ago they fixed the sizing to match industry standard- great. They did not fix how they work. If you place a 24” deep clipped corner cabinet next to a 21” deep cabinet (SOP in my world) the clip will disappear. There are work arounds (which is all I use for them, never use the feature. Stile extended to the floor (base cabinets only) which Chief calls a “closed toe” (never ran into that name myself) was given an “always present” option in X9- not disappear when next to another cabinet- BUT there is no control of each side. You get it on both or not at all. (I don't use it at all because of that) Manufacturer catalogs have NO cabinets in them. I don't find this an issue but you should be aware. They have door styles, molding, colors stuff like that. Adding modifications and or accessories is general manual, more difficult than in 2020. But X9 had provided a way to make much of that far easier. You need to learn how to use the OIP (object information panel) look on the forum. Finally- there are more than enough important productivity tools that are only in the Premier version to make it worth the extra cost. IMO if you are working in kitchens and need Chief you need Premier. Use ctrl + S key often, the F1 key a lot, read the Reference Manual, follow this forum (read everything at least a little), say thanks to the folks at Chief when you think of it.

I put in a lot of tray dividers and thought it would be nice to use those with the new open door feature. In the past I've had to force those onto a cabinet, presents problems resizing or moving. Thought of this when I woke up. Plan attached with sample cabinet to and a couple of door symbols. Open the cabinet dbx to see how it all works. Open door symbols to see how to set up your own for other accessories. I plan on using this for a trash, Hafle Lemans and a few other things. Also included a single a Rev-A-Shelf Chrome tray divider. You'll have to make your own (or alter Joe C's if you want wooden ones. Tray dividers in place.plan

Had a few so dug up what I had- attached plan has that symbol turned into a cabinet. Looks like I built it from psolids to begin with. So I made one from a cabinet. Either will go in the schedule. The one on the right that was converted to a cabinet (exported fixture symbol as DAE, imported as cabinet) can't be resized. The center one is a cabinet will resize BUT you also need to alter the "door" symbols used to match the size. (included on the floor) If that degree of accuracy is not needed at the toe kick there are other ways to skin the cat- the one to the far Left. Bep cabinet.plan

That was what I had missing- did not evaluate, since it had a check figured I was ok. Both sets of code work, thanks guys.

I do em differently hence my earlier reply. I usually use overlays (aka build-up)-my most custom brand automatically makes them the proper depth to match the door. With others I have to specify that they are packed out to match door face. In ALL cases we include a reveal as if it were a door and the door profile no matter how small. In any case- attached is a symbol I had in a library folder of stuff like this.This one is a "fixture" so to get it into the schedule you would have to block it. You could turn it into a cabinet symbol but then it will no longer be editable. Pick yer poison Edit- thinking about it I likely made that symbol from a cabinet to begin with, will look for the original tomorrow, closed up for the day now. Filler symbol.calibz

kinda what I tried first with no joy, Thought I had a macro that was just a carriage return, tried remaking the macro but something not working. Get the same result using that.

I thought I had something for doing this but can't find it and can't make it work. Am I dreaming? Is there a way to insert a carriage return when editing "page information, title"? Thought that could be done with Ruby?

Certainly has advantages for reuse- gets rid of those pesky bottom strings. waterfall 2.calibz

BTW- I really like your idea of not having to use separate pieces for the counter- at least that's how I'm going to be doing them in the future in particular since I now have them in the library .:)

Larry attached is another plan if you need to fill in the inside edge. I was thinking cabinets would cover it. Set side to "Side panel inset" left and right separation to 0" Specified a custom slab door panel on (left side). Symbol is set stretch zone for total height, width at 0, depth stretch planes are set outside the depth of the object (-5 and 5) to prevent the depth from resizing. Origin is moved to be 3/4" from the face. IF you need different thickness legs then you need to generate a new symbol first.I included 3 on the plan-1.25", 2" and 3" They will size with the width of the symbols but the depth remains constant. Can be done- I included a waterfall cabinet combination in the plan. I'd never do what you are after this way -too much work not enough control. I'd use the water fall as one piece place cabinets and force the top over them with point to point or Transform Waterfall counter3.plan

I'd add that I think upgradeable GPU is just a sales buzzword. While mine is, that had nothing to do with my purchase. Since Pascal chips hit many more laptops (gaming) tout upgradable. Thing is will the next generation socket match, will the MOBO be compatible. Or the generation after that.? Even though we now see many more with desktop GPUs they still plug into the MOBO not a slot.