Chrisb222

To further on the above, it extends the dimension string to the next dimensional object(s), while retaining the last marker it's pulled from.

You're welcome! I was a long time Photoshop user in another life, and yes, it's quite different.

I use Gimp. https://www.gimp.org/

Simply delete the "bad" roof plane, select the "good" plane and hit Copy/Paste: then click the Reflect About Object tool, reflect the new plane centering it on the building (I will sometimes use CAD objects to center to, if having difficulty getting the alignment location): Finally, select one of the planes at the ridge edge, and use the Join Roof Planes tool to properly join the planes by clicking the ridge edge of the other plane. I like to drag the ridge edges away from the center first, if they are touching, just to make sure the program is doing the Join properly:

The attachment is empty. You have to close Chief Architect before zipping the file. If the file is under the size limit (14MB) you don't need to zip it.

From the part I bolded, it seems you're wanting the layout to pull client info from the plan file. If so, it won't do that. So yes, for the macro in layout to pull the client info, you have to enter it in the layout file. That's the same now (X15) as it was in X14. Generally, people don't often enter the client info in the plan file because it usually doesn't get used there, and it doesn't populate from plan to layout and vice versa. X15 introduced a new feature where Client info can be stored in global Preferences and thereby accessed for all new plan and layout files, but it seems that would only be useful if you are making new plans for a regular client often. In that case I would just create a custom template for that client, but perhaps others are aware of another use for this feature.

I noticed they stopped showing the version in the videos a while back, I guess so the videos don't "age" like they used to. In other words, when you can see that a video was made using say X9, it makes the video seem out of date.... which it is. But it would be a gargantuan task for Chief to redo every video each time a new version is released, and some of them don't need remade. The problem there is that some of the older videos show options that have been removed, and don't show features that have been added. It's a darned if you do, darned if you don't kinda situation. Out of curiosity I checked a few training videos and the oldest I found with the version number shown was X9, the newest was X13. So I guess they stopped showing the version with X14.

I had that same thought. I didn't go all "kicked in the pants" mad, but did feel it was a slightly unfair benefit. I mean, when I skipped SSA for a couple years, I had to pay DEARLY to get back on the wagon. So I see your point. I also upvoted you, because getting downvoted simply for stating a reasonable opinion sucks. Now, have I downvoted a couple of posts regarding the price change topic, because some guy was going around spamming every thread with nonsense whining? Yes because it just got really old. But one simple post with a reasonable opinion?

It wasn't mentioned earlier, so I'll just add that you don't have to open each string individually, one at a time. Draw all your dimensions, then shift-select all the strings and change them all at once. Takes two seconds.

Juliet Awning.calibz

Because in lighting circuitry, multiple switch locations require special switch devices, and the name of the devices used in a two-switch situation is "three-way switch." If you add a third switch location, all locations will utilize a device called a "four-way switch," and adding a fourth switch location also uses a four-way switch. So does the fifth location. The software is automatically specifying these special devices for you. Ain't that neat?

In my world yes, pulling the upper structure over to the "ridge" of the lower section is the proper solution. The attic wall wouldn't be framed into the ridge. The way I would do that, using trusses, is the upper roof would be built into the lower roof with a girder truss, then the "shed" portion would be built against the gable wall of the upper section. No offense but the cricket idea, IMO is ill-conceived no matter how it's implemented.

I just saw you're using X11. If I recall correctly, the break tool was added to stairs at some point recently. It may not be available in your version. In that case I believe we used to create two separate stairs but my memory is really old. Someone with a better memory can maybe explain how to do it in X11...

That's exactly what you do. Select the stairs, hit the Add Break tool then the Add Complete Break tool and break the staircase, move one section over.

Same thing I ran into. Even though everything was set up to print how I wanted, it still came out long-ways and I had to trim the paper. GRRR I concluded it was a "Chief Thang" and just gave up. Like so many other "CT"s

I experience that same thing, along with other issues, so I always print from a PDF. HP T520 here.

If you moved just the fascia edge of the roof by selecting that edge and moving it, and didn't move the entire roof plane, that edge will follow the pitch of the roof- move in and it moves up, out and it moves down. If you want the fascia height to remain unchanged, move the entire roof plane then adjust the other edges back to where you need them.

Just a thought- posting a topic on the Suggestion forum is NOT the same as, or a substitute for reporting a technical issue. My apologies if you knew and/or have already done that, but it is what Joe has done and Michael advised you to do.

It's darned cold outside so I've been bored and reading the old forum just for kicks, and came across something I found interesting. An old post by @Archnot-Boltz complaining (nahh!) about a rounding problem that ended up being caused by the housewrap layer in the OOB wall definition for Brick-4. Doug Park commented that "The issue is that the wall as was submitted had it's main layer off grid and was not exactly the thickness as was expected, 9.51" if my memory serves." So I downloaded the file (it's still there) and went into the wall specs, and the wall showed a thickness of 9-1/2" but when I switched the Number Style to decimal inches, it showed as 9.51" just as Doug said, but then when I went into the Wall Type Definition, the Housewrap layer showed as .01" instead of 0 as was expected. I thought the "as was submitted" comment was odd since the wall was not the "wrong" thickness, it was the thickness set by the software. (Another really odd thing is that when you change the Number Style back to fractions, then back to decimal, WITHOUT changing the housewrap thickness, close the Wall Type DBX, and reopen it, the housewrap layer now shows as 0.00", and the General panel wall thickness shows as 9.5") So I got curious to see if the same thing happens with a new plan using the X14 OOB residential template and Brick-4 wall. I didn't try any other wall types or mess around with it anymore, but sure enough, that 0 thickness house wrap layer becomes .01" when displaying decimal inches, and the wall thickness is 9.51"... AND the .01 goes away if you flip back to fractions, then back to decimal ...... after all these years. Anyhoo, I just thought it was interesting. http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread.php?56475-Dimension-Glitch-or-Wrong-Default-Setting And no, there is no question here, which means it should probably be in Chat, but I assume most users never read anything but Q&A and this might be an issue for someone else someday.

I think it's an answer not a question. The question is "Where can I buy a floor naming macro when I have a house with two basements?"

You're welcome!

That's the railing hanging out past the stairs. If you make the top rail narrower you won't see that extra line.

A Google search for "bushes.png" brings up plenty. They should have a transparent background and drop right in. I didn't try it so no money back guarantee!

Maybe within the same .plan file?? Just guessing. Truss framing and dynamic material list are great, but I hope there are more Big Surprises coming...

Thanks, I see now that all finished area under stairs counts. I read that section but the wording was a little unclear to me. My apologies to @VisualDandD Actually, I was thinking specifically of usable space beneath stairs, which is not only accessible, but usable - although often unfinished.