Ridge_Runner

I believe you can only make a custom toolbar and add it to that or an existing one. You can then dock it at the bottom as Mick has done above. You can't add tools to the CA "edit toolbar" as far as I know.

If you will do a forum search I know there was a similar thread some time back. I think Michael @Alaskan_Son I believe had a method and did a video. His, I think, was for raised text. But I believe you could do similar making the text a solid and then subtracting. Maybe he will chime in when he can.

Too funny! Good for a chuckle this morning. Thanks.

Very interesting, Justin. I like the live walk-thru addressing some of the client's concerns.

Ryan, I use a little different technique that usually doesn't require drawing the CAD lines. Use the mask with a 45° hatch pattern set to a 75 line weight and a white color - transparent background. Make the border of the mask polyline the same and adjust the top side to just below your CAD grade line. The foundation will show, the hatch will mask the existing lines making them look "dashed." This works if you print a black and white layout and not color.

Thanks, Chopsaw. Just did a search to find an old thread of how to do this (older brains are slower). Found this thread. Thanks again.

May be a foolish point, but did you build framing for the floor?

Thanks, Dermot, for the FYI.

Unless you purchased extra seats of the software at some point, your single license is upgraded from version to version. You can run an older version on your machine but you cannot "give" an older version to someone else - violates the original agreement.

Graham @TheKitchenAbode has done a considerable amount of work in this area. Maybe he will show up and give you some of his findings. You can search the forum for his threads in this area - lots of good info in them.

Worked. Thanks.

Not in mine. SSA current.

Check the text layer color. It may be the same color as your screen background; just change it to a different color if that is the problem. OtherCad programs are notorious for this.

Thanks, Joey. This has bugged me for years.

Just ran into this on a current project - very frustrating. I'm not sure "quirk" is a strong enough word.

You will have to post the plan. An "L" shaped stair will not work with the dimensions you show. Would probably have to be a straight stair. But without a plan it's all guess work as Stephen said.

Being a fellow Tennessean, I would like to meet the person who convinced so many in our area that barns are the way to go for a "cheap" new home with minimal work. I can't tell you how many barndominiums I have done over the last few years; pain in the butt and not really that much cheaper to build in the long run. With that said, it can be done but does require a lot of work because you are using apples and oranges to some degree. From your pics, it appears the barn is not that old and the structure appears to be sound. If so, use the shell as mentioned above. I would probably recommend running any 2nd floor joists from the front to the back to stay away from the side eaves so you don't have to raise the roof to fit the joists in. That would also keep most point loads in the interior of the structure where you could make sure the foundation pads can be installed easily. Hard to give any suggestions (and that's all they are) without more info on the entire project proposed.

In the PC world we unfortunately live in today you had better apologize to that wall or it may sue...

That's exactly what SPV's are. Like Michael (Alaska) said above, what we are actually using is saved "defaults." Whether you call them annosets, default sets, or whatever, they are based on active defaults for each view where you decide what to show or not show and how to show it.

"Polyline Solids created in plan view can be reshaped in elevation views—and vice versa" Really like some of the listed features, but this one is certainly a welcome feature for me; and the stair changes.

So true; thank you, Glenn, for mentioning this. This is one of the main reasons I use SPV's. I open several as I work and can switch from view to view as I work without worrying about what floor to set, what annoset to pick, etc. Great timesaver. My goal is not to sell people on SPV's but to share my experience in using them, as the OP requested.

This is a different animal (as-builts). You could do a hybrid plan on this one. I always have the CA location 0,0,0 shown on my template plans with a point marker, shown in a bold color and placed on its own locked layer that I can turn on and off; copy it to each floor. For your as-built, you could just draw four walls on the 1st floor, starting at 0,0,0, to form a box. Build a blank foundation. Then, draw your as-built foundation starting at 0,0. Go up to the 1st floor and adjust to suit. That would do what you want I think.

I agree. If you start with the foundation, and then the client, or you during the developmental phase, make changes, the foundation work will be lost or at least have to be edited. 1st floor is king with me and the foundation is usually the last thing I work on.

For me, it's pretty simple. The SPV "remembers" the things I want to save for a layout view, like Joe states. I set everything (defaults) I want for that view: - annoset (if you still use those), which sets the layerset, which sets the text defaults - zoom level - floor level - multiple reference layersets (if needed) These are just off the top of my head and not an exhaustive list. The last three - zoom level, floor level, multiple ref sets, are a tremendous time saver, especially over a period of time. I can't tell you how many times, when only using annosets, I would edit a plan view, change floors to double check something, and then, in a hurry, close the view and just hit the "save" in the dbx that comes up for the layout. When I go back to check my layout views, I complain that CA changed my layout view without me knowing it. When, in fact, it was me in a hurry. SPV's have almost eliminated those types of errors. And this is just one example; I could come up with others if I took the time to think about my new workflow.

Same here. SPV's are so versatile I wouldn't want to go back. They have streamlined my workflow greatly.