rlackore

...or something like a clipping plane defined on a per-camera basis (this type of function has been discussed before).

I don't think it's that easy. Certainly, as you suggested earlier, reducing the file size of the PDF would probably help, but the trade-off is reduced fidelity for printing. But PDFs store different types of information (fonts, raster data, vector data, etc) and each type affects rendering time.

3D>CREATE ORTHOGRAPHIC VIEW>ORTHOGRAPHIC FLOOR OVERVIEW 3D>VIEW DIRECTION>TOP VIEW 3D>RENDERING TECHNIQUES>LINE DRAWING ...adjust the technique options to your liking. However, this only gets you part way there - there is no cut plane, so you won't see windows and doors.

Take a look at Larry's specs in his signature - if his rig (and other fairly powerful rigs) have issues, I think it's either an inherent problem with Chief's method/management of PDF display, or simply that large PDFs tend to render more slowly no matter what. I've noticed that big PDFs tend to bog down no matter if using Chief, Adobe, or a 3rd-party viewer/editor.

I believe the OP is using PDFs provided by others.

Yep, it happens. The slowness depends on the size of the PDF, and the resolution of any embedded images.

It depends on the depth of the truss top chord. Another solution would be to frame a gable end wall - then lookouts could be used to achieve a deeper rake.

If you want framing for the curved wall just select it and RIGHT CLICK>BUILD FRAMING FOR SELECTED OBJECT.

As Dennis noticed, add a finished ceiling and assign it a material. For some reason when I add a finished ceiling the material automatically assigned is Insulation Air Gap - you need to change this to a material that isn't defined as Gap.

Post the plan.

Your plan contains no data - be sure to close the plan before zipping or uploading it.

You can build an over-hanging rake without a dropped-top-chord end truss, but I would not go over 1 foot. A continuous subfascia and the sheathing will help support the barge rafter; use lookouts as well. I'm not necessarily recommending this approach, but it's done. I would also consider the pitch of the roof and the anticipated snow load in Chicago.

Post the plan.

Also search this forum - there have been all sorts of posts about this kind of issue.

You can also use the BUILD>WALL>HATCH WALL tool - it works on railings.

Make the change, as Perry suggested, then save the layout as a template. If you create a new layout that hasn't been modified and saved, then of course the Layout Box Labels will keep appearing.

It depends on the Rail Style. I can get hatch fills to show up with a Solid rail, but I can never get solid fills to show up with any style rail.

As Joe suggested select the Layout Box, open the Object Layer Properties dbx, then unselect the Disp column for the Layout Box Labels layer: ...or as Perry suggested, open the Layout Page Display Options and turn off the Layout Box Labels for the Layer Set:

The more pertinent question is: "what is Chief going to do about it?" We've requested better print control before. The OP's situation is not unusual.

Graham, I hear you. I just wish CA would be willing to take a stance and commit to what is best/good/enough to run their software.

It will work - but it won't be easy. The OP has placed his call-outs in Layout; and I suspect each of the details you see on his picture are individual layout boxes. Using your method will require a lot of re-sending and re-creating call-outs.

Dan, the difficulty with this method is that you have to position the view you want just right - on my system stuff in the center of the "current view" prints out to the far right, so I have to re-size the program window and futz around a whole bunch - it's a complete pain.

Andy, I think the OP wants to be able to control what each 8-1/2" x 11" sheet displays; at least, as an old AutoCAD user, and given his description of using AutoCAD's windowed print mode, I THINK that's what he's after.

Andy, the problem is that Chief "divides" the drawing sheet (say 24" x 36") into lots of 8-1/2" x 11" sizes and you end up with a complete mess - no control over the output.

Doug, if Xeons are a better choice (recommended?), then I think Chief should add this to their Computer System Requirements web page. Currently the advice on the page only mentions i7 CPUs: "A multi-core system, such as a system that uses a quad-core i7 processor, would be a good choice." Also, I've read several times on this forum that we should get the "best gaming rig" you can afford. I don't know if this advice originated from users, or from someone at Chief. Xeon chips are pretty rare for consumer gaming rigs, and any google search will lead you to various conflicting opinions on i5/i7 vs Xeon. Is your opinion, as stated above, shared by the CA gurus who publish the System Requirements? Can I interpret your statement as an endorsement of Xeon over i5/i7 for future computer purchases?