AlexAncon

So to avoid the issue, if you had it to do over again, would you have purchased the standard iMac instead (as far as CA is concerned)?

I have to buy a new computer for my weekend place. I have been dragging my laptop back and forth but now the hard drive is acting up so it may be on its way out. Since I store all my work files in the cloud I was considering buying an iMac and leaving it at the farm. The available computing power on the 5k machine is better than a maxed out standard iMac which is the appeal to me rather than the screen resolution. All that being said, did the slowness issue you described ever get resolved? I have been using a 27" hd cinema display and been very happy with it. I can't imagine needing anything clearer than that for the work that I do. But if the performance of Chief is being impacted then maybe I should get the machine with less power and the standard 27" display. Thoughts?

That angle chart was very helpful! Thank you for including it.

My pleasure.

One round of points....on me.

Sounds about right to me Joe. In reading the annotation set tutorial it sounds like you have to do that before you create the plan. Is it possible to do after the plan is done?

Oh and to determine which way you want to show right click on the desktop or folder, chose view options and take it from there..

Depending on how you are viewing them the default changes. If you are viewing them in Finder then they appear according to the default you have set for Finder. If you are viewing on Desktop, different story. When they are seen as attachments to emails, the icon view vs thumbnail view is determined by the size of the PDF. As for why they look different in the folder it depends on what you have set as your default PDF viewer. Hope that helps.

24 x 36 is pretty manageable but even at 3/16" I can't get the schedules on the same page as the plan. The dimension number resize is certainly helpful but when there are so many dimensions that clutter up pretty quickly. The foundation drawings have all the overall dimensions but even the engineers put the piers on a different sheet from the beams and the floor framing systems. So the goal is to create 36 x 48 layout pages that I can print at 50% and still be legible at 18x24. Using the "change dimension size" on the layout pages certainly helps (thanks!). Now if I can find out how to (in the same way) change all the labels on the doors and windows (all at the same time) I will be set.

I'm not sure why but most of my projects are large one story homes. These won't fit on 24 x 36 pages (at 1/4" scale) and I have to go to 36 x 48 to have them work on the page. I could shrink them to 1/8 but then the drawings seem to get very crowded looking. The trades know that they can't scale anything so I generally take these huge pages and (for anything other than permitting) print them at 50% Only the sharpest eyes can read the text at that point. Is there a simple way to increase the size of the text so that things look good at the 1/8" scale? I would prefer to essentially duplicate the layout set but with different scale requirements. Can this be done as alternates to the same set so that changes would be reflected on both rather having to make the changes twice?

As Demot says, it is going to happen unless something is done to hide the module lines. The problem with the custom countertop approach is that it hides the appliance that is installed in the island (DW, Ice, etc.). What I have done in the past is create a copy of the plan and fake the top view of the island to have it show correctly. There are a number of weird things that I have done like this in the past in order to get where I needed to be. So far, you folks have been very helpful in showing other ways that may be simpler. I appreciate it. Joe's eye dropper idea is going to save me a lot of time.

Thanks Curt. The only way I can get them disappear is a work around that I use that requires creating a duplicate and alternate plan.

I didn't attach the plan I am actually working on (it's big and cumbersome) but I worked up an example plan. I also included screen shots of the various states: module lines off/on and with the custom countertop. I have been using the custom counter top solution but it means that I do lose the ability to include some information (appliances for instance). If I reduce the transparency of the counter top, I can show appliances but the offset lines show as well. As always. Thanks! countertop_question.plan

Thanks Jon. I gave that a shot but they still show. I insured that flat sides were checked on the cabinets in the center as well.

Whenever I assemble different sized bases on opposites sides of an island, there are lines that appear showing where they don't match. I have (in the past) always then created a top rather than the default top, which hides it. But I wondered if there was an easier way. Thoughts?

Thanks to you all! The combination of those suggestions is exactly what I need. The size of many of my projects means that I have to go 1/8" or end up on 36x48 sheets which are really tough to wrangle. These suggestions will certainly help!

Thanks David. I understand that part (I think) but my question is more about how other folks may be dividing up the information. I seem to have many more pages and dimensions than I see on most the plans that are shared and wondered if maybe there was a better way to communicate the information I am providing without overloading the person reading the plans. It doesn't seem to be too difficult for me to end up with 40 pages for a single 6k sq ft house.

When your plans become very cluttered with all the elevation / section call outs, text, markers and dimensions, do you ever create a layer set that has just the plan and the call outs as a key to the elevation pages? There is so much detail on the house I'm working on that it gets very hard to read easily. I have generally just created a basic plan that shows the callouts but wondered if anyone had way of doing it. I have considered deleting the callouts (turning off) and just indicating north, south, etc on the elevations along with the room label. Thoughts?

johnson_before.plan Duplicate three times 01 02 03 Determine client's best of the three options Change file name of selected to johnson_selected.plan and make all final adjustments and add details. Return to johnson_before to save as johnson_demolition.plan for con docs but always retaining the clean "as built". Finish up with two plan files being used and the rest shifted to johnson_rejected_archive folder. I do love the hierarchy of folders.

Thanks gentlemen! That told me what I needed. I appreciate it!

The upper portion of the Gallery (long tall hall) is supposed to sit upon the lower walls and be wider above than below. I have the upper portion defined as "Open Below" but it is then cutting off the ceiling joists of the adjacent areas. How would you adjust to make this work? I thought about putting a polyline "hole in floor" but that seems tricky to cut tight and yet not slide the edge off the sheetrock below. I also wanted to be sure that the upper area wasn't included in the square footage calculations of living area. It should look more like the black and white line drawing rather than the colored one. Thoughts?

That will work really well for placing trees and topographic lines from scaled surveys onto site plans. Thanks!

Thank you gentlemen. Between the two of you-Success. Got it all corrected.

After seeing some of the symbols you folks create, it's embarrassing to say that I need something as simple as a three panel door. I followed the instructions for symbol creation but somehow I keep ending up with this. The door looks fine in elevation as stand alone thing during the building of the symbol process but as soon as I create the symbol the whole thing seems to be facing the wrong way. I have built it parallel and perpendicular but it still is coming out wrong. Any suggestions as to what I am doing wrong?

No luck finding it Joe. Any idea what topic it may have been under?