rlackore

You can use a room divider, perpendicular to the railing. This will prevent the railing and the other wall from joining. Example (dividers in pink):

How about inserting this symbol: Size it however you want, then draw a CAD Closed Polyline (or CAD Box) over the symbol and use Convert Polyline>Architectural>Hole in Floor Platform. In cross-section you get this:

No, they only appear in Physically Based render mode, or in a Raytrace.

The manufacturer states it can be used for: Sloped roof skylights Flat roof skylights Vents for wet areas such as bathrooms, kitchens or toilets I suspect they fabricate it to whatever pitch you desire, whether for a ridge application or a mono-slope application.

I believe the OP's post states that he wants it to follow the roof pitch, not sit on the ridge as the manufacturer illustrates.

After you've placed the symbol in the plan, open the Fixture Specification dbx and: General>Elevation Reference>From Roof General>Options>Flush Mounted

Thanks for the reminder about the Object Layer Properties tool - it's a gem that I don't use often enough. I've now assigned it a hotkey.

Can you turn off the relevant layer? That should hide the room dividers.

If you select the Interior-4 wall while in Orthographic Overview, then adjust the settings as described, it will work. Don't mess around with an exterior Siding-6 wall, and don't drag any wall around - it's just not necessary.

One solution (there are more than one): 1. Delete that wall. 2. Shoot an Orthographic Full Overview. You'll see the Interior-4 wall; select it and Open Object. 3. Change the Wall Type to Siding-6 to match your other exterior walls. 4. In Roof>Roof Options, check Roof Cuts Wall at Bottom. This gives you the desired exterior wall infill, while removing any wall in the interior.

Maybe this setting will help: Callout Specification>Text Style>Options>Rotate with Plan.

This old thread may give you some ideas: here.

The roof tiles in your example are represented by a 2-dimensional Material (Chief Architect X11 Reference Manual, page 1023); Materials can use Material Maps (page 1024) to simulate a 3-dimensional surface using Bump maps and Normal maps; only specific Rendering techniques take advantage of these maps. If you want a true 3-dimensional surface, you need to use 3-dimensional objects or Symbols for the tiles.

I use Word. Text formatting and editing is easy. I have a master document that gets "copied" for each new job and I edit as necessary, then export to PDF for publishing. Making use of the "hidden" font attribute allows me to keep text without it being displayed or included in the TOC; "unhiding" allows me to include it at a later point in the job if necessary.

When I "improved" the material the Texture>Retain Original Aspect Ratio checkbox got checked unintentionally. Changing the material to 3x6 is easy, just adjust everything in the Material dbx:

Did you accidentally delete the roof openings (on the floor below)? When I recreate them, I get shafts:

For your inverted tile, a normal map is all that is necessary (my opinion). Googling 'normal vs bump map' will lead you to further reading. Here's a better version of the material - I removed the pronounced shadow from the left bevel so the fake shadow isn't biased to the left: inverted tile improved.calibz

Normal maps. Learning a few tools in Gimp or Photoshop can go a long way: inverted tile.calibz

I ran my own test back in August using a Layout file with/without an embedded PDF (the PDF file size was 13 kb - not very large). I printed the output at 300 dpi using Chief's PDF printer. Here's a screenshot of the Layout page without the embedded PDF - the printed file size was 40 kb: Here's a screenshot of the Layout page with the embedded PDF - the printed file size was 1,152 kb: This was an increase of 2,780%. When I printed the page with the PDF obscured by a CAD mask, the printed file size was 1,153 kb, so even though the print engine wasn't required to render the PDF, the PDF still impacted the size of the printed output. I shared these results with Tech Support via a ticket, and was told the results of my test would be passed on to the development team. It was suggested I explore using other print to PDF options, but that Chief "cannot guarantee that everything will render correctly from our software."

Is she using Gmail within Chrome (or another browser), or if she is using another email client that aggregates all her accounts? If she's using an aggregator, maybe it treats attachments differently.

I don't know if Chrome and Gmail looks/works differently on a Mac, but on Windows you don't need to right-click the attachment, simply mouse-over the attachment and select either Download or Save to Drive:

Maybe find a different way to share files, such as Dropbox or Onedrive.

Sure, it can work for any situation if you're willing to create the necessary normal maps. Not easy, I agree, but possible. EDIT: Maybe material regions (as Joe suggested) for the rustication joints with a normal map assigned to the material regions?

You can simulate the bevel with normal maps. Here are example materials that can point you in the right direction: HardiePanel.calibz

You can create a sign without too much trouble if you're comfortable using a graphic editor like Photoshop or The Gimp. The example below was created using Chief tools - millwork for the posts and polyline solids for the board - and using The Gimp to create the diffuse, bump, and normal maps from a picture I found online. The picture was low-resolution, so the result isn't the best, but with a higher resolution image you could get much better results. Rendered in Chief: Rendered in Sketchup: