rlackore

The plan file doesn't contain the jpg file - be sure to use Backup Entire Plan when you upload files which contain referenced images. FWIW, I've never run across a program that includes referenced files (images, pdfs, etc.) when it performs a dwg export. Even with AutoCAD you normally have to send along the referenced files as loose attachments.

I agree, 99.9% of the time it isn't necessary, but some clients can obsess on the smallest details. On occasion I've had to go to great lengths to model a condition so it displays absolutely correct. As long as the effort is billable...

Not always true - there are both single- and double-track systems. I believe the OP's picture shows a single-track system with offset hangers for the outboard leaf. If absolute accuracy is required in the model, this should be taken into account.

There's the key! Thanks Michael - I've never clicked on that little circle before, I've always grabbed the diamond.

Thanks for the explanation. You're correct - I used an End-to-End dimension, then manually located the cabinet parts. A big chunk of my confusion is in not understanding/learning the proper Dimension tool names - I wrongly conflated End-to-End with Manual. That said, I would argue that if both my End-to-End and Manual defaults are set to cabinet Sides and Corners, then they shouldn't pick up the other cabinet parts, even if I "manually" locate things afterward. Does that make sense?

Here is an example of similar behavior that I don't understand: Dimension Defaults>Locate Manual is set to Cabinets>Corners. But when I drag a manual dimension, I can still locate other cabinet geometry such as stiles, door panels, etc.: This doesn't seem correct. Here's the plan, which is the X13 version of Chief's American Casual template: Amerian Casual.zip

You can also use Wall Coverings, which you can control on a per-wall basis, interior or exterior sides. No extra wall layers, no custom drywall colors.

I missed your comment about raytracing - sorry. Anyway, you're not alone in having issues with standard view.

I've experienced anomalies with trees and transparency when in standard view, but it resolves in a raytrace. have you tried a raytrace?

Personally, I keep my exterior wall definitions as simple as possible, e.g. for the wall you've illustrated I'd have: exterior finish (which would be a single thickness that represents the entire system: wrb, lath, and all stucco coats) exterior sheathing framed main layer interior finish IMO, keeping all my exterior walls with these four simple layers helps me when the wall intersections get weird. It also keeps the plan views and section views more readable. I use schedules and text to communicate the individual components of the wall assembly.

Should stretch to any size you need, within reason. Materials are OOB Chief, so not great, but serviceable. The symbol is set to sit 1/8" above the floor, which isn't realistic, but cutting a hole in the floor to model the pit is a PITA. When inserting, set the front face of the symbol flush with face of the dock, then move 3-5/16" away from the dock - not perfect, but close enough (I wish Chief allowed us to specify the insertion point of a symbol). I've included the SKP file if anyone wants to improve or modify the geometry. dock leveller.calibz dock leveller.skp

I opened and examined the CAD file. The drawing is very imprecise: most objects are drawn slightly "off"; for instance, the footing depth is 143.5135 inches, or approximately 11' 11-1/2". Most other objects are similarly imprecise, and not uniformly so. If you use the footing as your baseline, and scale the entire drawing by 24/143.5135=0.167232, the footing depth will be correct (or close enough), but most of the other objects will remain imprecise. You can set up a dimension default to round off to whatever precision is acceptable, but some dimensions may still need their values altered manually. Also, the CAD work is very sloppy (or, at least, the resulting dwg export is sloppy); I suggest you turn off your Grid snaps, and learn how to use Object snaps. And as everyone else has mentioned, draw at a 1:1 scale.

You could redefine the symbol's 2D CAD block, but you can't control the display layer of individual elements of the CAD block, so I don't think you can do what exactly what you want. Larry's suggestion to use a Reference layerset is probably the way to go.

If you have an intranet, you can set up a folder on your server to store common texture files (and pattern files, backgrounds, etc.); the caveat is that you must either: 1) use UNC file path names, or 2) everyone on your team must map the shared folder to the same drive letter. This is how we do things in my office, and it works for the most part.

The Gypsum Association WP 9021 requires 3 layers of 5/8" type X, but the UL V421 allows 3 layers of 1/2" regular. The UL assembly might save a bit of money, if the building department allows the UL assembly.

Check out the UL BXUV V421 assembly. If you don't have access to the online UL database, you can use the attached publication from the MBMA - it's old, but the assembly hasn't changed. The head-of-wall is an area of special concern - you'll have to detail that yourself based on the roof construction. MBMA UL V421.pdf

Does the fire separation distance require a wall rated from both sides, or just the interior side?

You could drag the wall up to meet the eave.

And the EV200 also requires a 40 amp circuit - my mistake - I'll edit my post. California is always out ahead of everyone else; in Wisconsin we've just begun to see local jurisdictions require car charging stations in multi-family developments.

This post may get better results in the Seeking Services forum.

Here is the Bosch EV200 charging station. It has the standard SAE J1772 connector and requires 208/240 on its own 40 amp circuit. charging station.calibz

You need to build the framing:

Have you considered adjusting the DPI when you print to PDF? FWIW, I create a Dropbox folder for each project to transfer and share files, documents, etc.

Just spit-balling, but it looks like the kitchen ceiling has been lowered by: 1. unchecking Room Specification>Structure>Ceiling>Flat Ceiling Over This Room 2. and then drawing a manual ceiling plane This will result in what I see in your picture, which I assume is the subfloor (or roof?) sheathing above. Of course, it's just one guess, based on a single picture, so who knows?

The OP answered your question: