javatom

Just auto detail it and then delete the parts you dont want.

The "as-built" of the existing home is kind of a required element. Most permit offices would not accept a plan that did not show this. It also shows what the completed project would look like.

You use 2 plans. One with the structure "as-built". The other one with the new design. Take a camera view then hit "tools", "floor reference display". Then turn on the other plan in the reference display with a different type of view like glass house and you will see them both.

Save as method.

Open the default for the dimensions and change it from feet and inches to just inches.

Use various clever ideas to place posts where you want them - 15 min. Place them manually - 2 min.

This is an example of the opposite extreme of too much info on the plan. One county I work in tried to use an "opt in program". All plans had to be submitted but you could choose whether or not to have the plans examiner and the field inspectors involved. This experiment has since come to an end. The picture is an actual plan (not one I made) that was approved for construction under this system. I think you can guess why the experiment failed.

This is the way to do it. I know some plan checkers as friends and they confirm that they change from week to week. They change their focus on what they want to see. Give them almost nothing. They will request some notes. Add them, upload the revision and move on to the next job. I started to see LESS revision requests when I started doing this. It often goes through with no note requests. This whole conversation is about the "busy work" notes that no one reads. A relevant specification is a different story. I feature those on the plan where they are needed and will get read.

You placed the yellow starts on the window "frame". That part will generate to fill the wall dimension. Just place a window and it will be there.

Make sure the floor framing layer is turned on.

Placing the search words in quotations can sometimes bring better results.

You often have insightful ideas but getting rid of layouts is probably the worst suggestion in the history of this forum.

I understand that and I do not use it that way but many people might think that is how it works.

If you have anno sets and layer sets that work for your layout, the plan views are a redundant feature. One downside I can think of is a layer being turned off and you want it turned off for every level. With anno sets, you just turn it off and the images are gone from each layout page that features that type of view. With plan view sets, you have to alter multiple pvs to accomplish the same thing. I use the plan view sets but I do not rejoice over its development the way some users do.

I have gone back to anno sets as well.