KristjanM

Okay... Entered 1in = 500in and that worked. Don't know why that never occurred to me. Tunnel vision. Thanks for the suggestions.

I am sending a site plan to layout and can't adjust the box scale smaller than 1/32" = 1'-0". Never come up against this problem before. What I actually need Is to have the scale at 1/42" = 1'-0" which would be the equivalent of 1:500 in metric.

Ryan, That is a good suggestion and certainly gives a good result. My goal really is to reduce the need for manual tweaking for general things. A work in progress.

Yes that works although there is an unwanted leading 0 in numbers above 9. ie. W208,W209, W2010, W2011. Thanks for the tip. I will have to play around some more. As great as the improvements in X15 are, I could do with much better flexibility in schedules for a start..

Just tried something else. I have a custom field - Window #. I defined this as %schedule_number%. For example - window labeled as W205 on the plan view reports as W105 on the schedule. In object properties, schedule number is W205. Just seems like a glitch to me.

I really like to have my window (or door) number represent what floor the object is on. I know I can do this manually but would like to use CA's numbering capabilities. I have seen a number of posts with regard to this but none provide a good solution. I also am aware that I can just add the floor number field to the schedule. So... using floor_number as a macro reference in the Schedule Number Prefix field, I can get the window number to display correctly on a plan view. On floor 1, I get numbers stating with 1. On floor 2, I get numbers starting with 2. However, the window schedule does not display the correct numbers. If I use the ObjectProperties macro, the floor numbers are correct. A glitch or what?? Window Numbering.plan

If the general framing member trick doesn't work for you, this is what I have done. Make 4 textures - 1) oriented horizontal, 2) oriented vertical, 3) oriented at 45 deg, 4) oriented at -45 deg. Apply appropriately to each part of the brace. A little bit of effort but it works.

Back in 1974 when I started as a carpenter, we used 2x4's. At some point the building code changed and we went to 2x6's. It was only to accommodate R20 batts in the walls due to the change in insulation requirements. We could also go to 24" oc for the 2x6's as 16" oc wasn't needed for any structural reason. 2x4's are entirely okay. The only thing you have to satisfy is the insulation requirements.

Can you not use "Edit Wall Layer Intersections" ?

Different energy evaluations require different square footages. Passive house would deduct the interior partition area from the ceiling area. If I'm using Hot 2000 (I'm in Canada), the wall partitions are not deducted. Maybe Chief should allow for options with the calculations.

In Autocad, you use colors to represent line width. Makes sense when you're doing it.

If you indeed get to keep the most current version as per the SSA, that would be great.

Re: The cost To purchase a copy of Chief with SSA for 5 years would give you a cost for 5 years of $5,937. For 5 years of subscription (1 year at 1,995 plus 4 years at 2,375), the cost is $11,495. Something wrong with this scenario.

I think this is a terrible change from Chief. This does nothing for the user and only benefits Chief. I left Revit exactly due to the implementation of the subscription model. With Softplan, if you own a version and pay their version of the SSA, you get the updates as they come out. However you don't own the new version and if you quit the SSA, you only have rights to your original version. So, a possible scenario. You create a project in Version 16 (you own Version 14) and decide that you no longer need the SSA updates. You can no longer use Version 16 and can't open any projects created with it. This is exactly what happens with Softplan. I would like to hear Chief's explanation about what version of the software one is actually going to own.

Thank you. I will investigate this.

Eric, any suggestions?

I'm scaling it to make it 1:1 since I exported from layout. I chose to export from layout because the views are cropped to what I want to show. Quite often I have things outside the layout crop which I can't turn off using layer sets. I'm quite familiar with Autocad so understand what the engineer needs. This seemed to be the easiest method for me. Some people like apples, some like oranges.

Decimal feet preferably.

I am using %perimeter% in a schedule. I would like the units to be in feet if possible.

I have some polyline areas which I want to schedule information for. The area is in sqft, the perimeter is in inches. Is there any way to display the perimeter in feet? i am not finding any location to adjust this.

Thanks for the comments. No magic method here. Too bad all the engineers I work with use Autocad.

If your wall lines in Chief are black, you can't see them. Change the background colour in AutoCad to white.

Just had to send my first copies of my drawings to the structural engineer in dwg format. The least onerous way I could see to do this was export each drawing sheet from layout but then I had to open each dwg file and scale them up by a factor of 48. The other option was to play with my plan views and export from there but this seemed to be more work. I regularly have to provide dwg files. How do other people handle this. Chief doesn't seem very freindly with regard to this task.

An Ingenious method. That's one of the things I like about Chief...opportunities for creativity.

Thanks to all for the comments. I will try them out. Also fixed my cursor.