Alaskan_Son

Here's what I do. I only ever send a single plan view to layout. For the next page, all I do is copy/paste hold position that first layout box and then change the Plan View (and/or floor, layer set, etc.).

Those are ceiling break lines. They're just informative. They can't be deleted, but you can turn off the Ceiling Break Lines layer.

It can, but its a very complex system to keep track of and manage. I would recommend you just stick with Chop's suggested method for now.

You have no answers because you've provided too little information Basil. Too hard to tell what we're even looking at, and that second image couldn't possibly be an exported DWG file because it shows clipped text boxes which isn't even possible unless its just an image that we're looking at. I think you'll need to post an example of the plan file and/or DWG file or its all a bunch of guesswork.

Susan, I think you might have to clarify what exactly the problem is and whether you're talking about 3D connections or plan views.

That's the OSB sheathing layer you have selected.

Sounds like you're attempting to use a non-framing material for your joist layer.

Tested your theory and it doesn't work for the framing display. The only setting I knew of that was kinda like this prior to knowing out the pony wall display was CAD Defaults. That one is slightly different though and can't have multiple settings on the same floor in plan view.

Not bad Chop.

Also, just a side note, but there are still a number of good reasons not to use pony walls for foundation walls in a number of scenrios, but not as many as there were before I realized that pony wall display can be VIEW SPECIFIC.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, the main point of the video Perry posted a link to is that if you have Display In Plan View for your pony wall set to Default, that layout box (and Plan View now) will remember the Pony Wall Default setting for Display In Plan View as it was when the Plan View was last saved or when the Layout Box was sent to layout. Super great tip.

That's not one I forgot about. Its one I never knew in the first place. Thanks again.

Whoa! That's new to me. Looks like that default is actually view specific (i.e. that same method can be used with Plan Views and not just layout boxes). Thanks Perry. It might not have been your video, but if I could give you 3 or 4 points for bringing it up, I would.

I hadn't watched any of the videos in the thread Larry. Just offering an alternative I hadn't seen anyone mention.

Correct. Not very refined and there are a lot of forks in the road depending on the design, but here's a quick example... Foundation Example.plan In fact, depending on the situation, I might even build that with 3 different floors where floor zero is any mono slabs, floor 1 is stemwalls and maybe some framed walls, and floor 2 is all framed walls.

Not sure what you mean by that. The model is still accurate.

Here's another option... Don't use pony walls. Instead, use foundation walls on the floor below. Using pony walls for foundation walls has all sorts of little problems. The alternatives have challenges of their own though so I'd say there's no perfect answer. It would definitely be nice if we could control pony wall display on a view by view basis though.

For what it's worth, I think it makes perfect sense that Chief removed the extra hatch patterns from the drop-down list. It might not be what we're used to, but now that we have the ability to rotate patterns on an object by object basis, it makes more sense to consolidate patterns for continuity and logicality. The vertical hatch, horizontal hatch, and 2 angle hatches are essentially the same exact pattern except that they're rotated. If Chief adds them back to the drop down now, they're just going to be duplicating patterns and any rotation settings in the dialog box are going to make a lot less sense for those. If for example you have a 45 degree angle set and switch to an angle hatch, it will look like a vertical hatch, the other angle hatch will look like a horizontal hatch, the angle cross hatch will look like a grid, etc. etc. I personally think Chief should just leave it as is. It always took me several seconds to think/sort through which of the angle hatches I wanted anyway. At least I don't have to think about it much now since I know it will be Strip, and then I just set the desired angle. Also, don't forget about both the Object Eyedropper and the new Fill Style Eyedropper. We shouldn't even need to go into that dialog box much of the time.

You don’t have to save anything to the library in this particular instance. IMO it’s faster to just set to strip and change the angle than it is to go to the library.

Yes. If its going into a CAD Detail then the notes are typically for that particular view (CAD Detail). That's easy enough to do in plan now but isn't possible in layout. And I totally agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense to separate those schedules from the view. I just mentioned that even if a person DID do that, they would still need to create the extra layers anyway.

I definitely agree for the bulk of situations. There are those that would make more sense in layout or CAD Details though...particularly when it comes to plan notes.

They should be able to go straight onto the layout page or straight into a CAD Detail in layout IMO. Both.

Just like every other annotation object...if you need more than one for any given view and you don't want them displayed in other views, then you need to use additional layers, no way around it. Having said that, you could place the schedule into a CAD Detail, but it still wouldn't alleviate the need for the extra layer for the notes themselves. I still wish Chief would add the capabilities to... Place notes in layout Create what amounts to a "Plan View Camera" where all annotations only exist in that one view just like an elevation camera Just switch the Active Layer for any/all annotation objects much like Current CAD layer instead of requiring a new default every time.

Totally disagree Joe. It's not like we're drafting by hand here. We're using some pretty complex digital fonts now with some drastically variant characters and heights. Based on the logic of your previous statement, we probably shouldn't have Rich Text in a CAD program either. I for one think that having the capability available is great. Losing capabilities...not so much.

It's not that complicated guys. Chief just needs to use something as the basis for that 6" character height...The capital letter A... ...or information stored with the font based on its various characters and their heights...