Ridge_Runner

3 minutes ago, Chopsaw said:

 Should I search ?

I was hoping the OP would do that.

1 hour ago, rgardner said:

Have you tried using a roof beam set to that size?

They don't position very well due to the skew angle and the pitch of the roof. Many times I have tried modifying a rafter for a different roof element and it will just drop down to a 0 pitch; it just seems to loose it's bearing in 3D space (or maybe I loose my bearing in 3D space).

1 hour ago, gobuildone said:

"valley rafter" or "valley plate"

Do a forum search using these terms. These have been discussed in the past; several comments about how to do it. Short answer - can't be done automatic. Has to be done as a workaround.

To each his own, but I always measure as-builts to the inside of the jamb/frame; it's the opening size I am most concerned about. The trim can be whatever (I do measure it to make sure I record any differences). The cabinet guy will take his own measurements and adjust accordingly. I take tons of pictures so I get the as-built visuals as close as possible as the real world, but don't worry with such things as reveals.

4 minutes ago, dshall said:

I forgot to record,  sorry

Did anyone else record? Sure hope so. Would like to see how others work; I always pick up some good tidbits along the way.

4 hours ago, GeneDavis said:

One takeaway I had after yesterday's GTM was that now with X12 and the SPV functionality, it might be best to do a complete review of all the layersets and default sets I've built and saved, and maybe throw out 90 percent of it, restarting with Chief's OOB X12 and its panoply of SPVs, and rebuild from there.

I gave some thought to doing this in my own workflow. May do it yet if we get another slowdown. With the price/availability struggle here (read sky high price and lack of availability of even studs at times) I may just get that time! Hope not, but the next few months will tell.

1 hour ago, rgardner said:

Version Y1???

I think C1...short for Corona1! That way, if anything goes wrong, it can be blamed on someone or something else.

1 hour ago, ChiefUserBigRob said:

"barndominimums" have become quite popular down here in south alabama.

Same here. I do several a year.

11 minutes ago, Breeze_Wood said:

not sure what a 35 or 75 would look like i know those would not work in cross sections ...

Are you using "Layout Line Scaling" when you send your views to layout? I always have this checked.

1 hour ago, Breeze_Wood said:

was wondering what is the general line weight that is used and if it is not the same for everything - am thinking of making everything a line weight of 10 or 12 ...

Maybe I don't understand what you are wanting to do, but this would be a disaster for condocs. I don't use a large number of line weights, but I use a variety from 1 to 75 (1,10,14,18,25,35,50,75 pretty much). My main cross section and framing lines are usually 25 - I use this one on many things; plan views and sections. I also print to PDF using 300 dpi; I get better results in the layout conversion to PDF at that setting (personal preference as most things are). If I were to go to 600 dpi I would use a 35 instead of the 25 for an average.

3 minutes ago, SNestor said:

If you have been using Anno sets to drive layersets for years...the "active defaults" statement can make your palms sweaty

I think this may be part of the confusion (and fear?). Some may think the "active defaults" will go back to some OOB (out of box) original CA settings. The "active defaults" are simply the ones currently set. That's what annosets did - change the active defaults. But SPV's also do that and much more as has been mentioned - a lot.

Is that wall layer "reversed" by chance? Check the plan file at that wall and see which side the siding is on. Just a wild guess without a plan file.

Did you check with the originator to see if they were ever created in the model?

1 hour ago, HumbleChief said:

the use of a CAD detail that has all of the schedules in that single CAD detail.

My current method.

Anyone know why the emoticons are still screwed up? Is it just my system? No big deal, but they have been this way for a while.

1 minute ago, robdyck said:

because they are so simple and there's no way Chief can screw them up!!!!! 

Good chuckle for me this morning. Thanks.

43 minutes ago, SNestor said:

 IMO they should have created a series of videos covering something like this in great detail. 

I totally agree. I know training videos are not cheap to make, but the benefits, from an education and  PR standpoint, would go a long way to help users, especially new users and those  contemplating moving to this software. I think much of the confusion on "Saved Plan Views" (SPV's) could be avoided if CA put out a good video explaining why annotation sets are being replaced with SPV's (which do the same thing and much more as Steve mentioned) and how to set them up and use them. Many people are visual and a good video just might get the light bulb to light up on SPV's and eliminate some of the obvious confusion that still exists.

3 hours ago, SteveNovato said:

I guess I could cover the radius info with a white box, but that seems so amateur!

Sometimes those little white boxes are your friend.  I use them to make my dwgs more "professional." Just a different way of looking at it, I guess.

1 hour ago, joey_martin said:

4. Keep client off Pintrest if you have any hope of staying on track for #2, and getting to #3.

Amen to that!

3 hours ago, glennw said:

Open the plan in X2.

@glennw Typo, Glenn?

I've been following this thread out of curiosity mostly, until I realized I might do the same thing in the future. My 2 cents is to recommend you contact Tech Support again with a reference to this thread in order to give them the scenario Michael came up with and the confirmation it can be repeated. Kudos to Michael for his diligence.

2 hours ago, Renerabbitt said:

Your knowledge has no bounds.

I think he secretly works for CA but is just too humble to admit it!

1 hour ago, RobUSMC said:

I have found that it happens when I slide one screen such as the plan view to another screen

I like to use my main (modified) Architectural toolbar "floating" with the child toolbar close to it and move them around if necessary. I had to stop trying to use it when using sections, which I like to move to another monitor, because the toolbars always "goofed up." They would change from floating to attached, sometimes on the right side of the main screen, sometimes at the top of the screen. Pain in the butt for sure. Toolbars should just "stick" when you float them instead of CA deciding they need to be somewhere else on the screen(s)' real estate. Most of the time I don't lose them, just have to hunt for them where CA put them.

3 hours ago, DavidJPotter said:

I sometimes see them alter and change for no apparent reason during use but I haven't reported it to Tech Support because I have not identified a pattern that causes the unwanted behavior yet.

Same here. Never could pinpoint what caused it to happen. Closing CA and reopening sometimes brought them back, sometimes not. Frustrating when it doesn't.

Looks good, Eric.