Alaskan_Son

A little different situations but the same principles apply...

Weird. I actually read this thread earlier while I was away from my computer. I suspected it was a light reflection issue as well but wasn't able to open the plan to check it out. I even read your response and remember you mentioning that it was related to the sun and it's reflection. I didn't recall you mentioning the material properties though. I guess maybe I should have re-read things when I got back to the office eh?? My bad : ) Please accept some reputation points as a symbol of my sincerest remorselessness...err, remorsefulness...hmmm, I guess the word is just remorse. Anyway, sorry bout that. I would delete my post but then this back and forth would make no sense.

Or...you can adjust the material properties of your grass to turn the specular settings down to at or near zero.

Away from my computer so I may not get the exact specifics right but when you send a view to layout you should have the option to "Use Layout Line Scaling". At least for plan views I don't believe you can change this after-the-fact. It has to be set when first sending to layout...if memory serves me correctly anywho. EDIT: One more detail...Check the box if you want the same printed line width at any scale. Uncheck the box if you want the line widths to change proportionally based on your scale.

Yup. All symbol types except "Cabinet". Still not sure why they've left that one out.

Unless it's just a quick concept drawing I don't trust or use Chief's automated blind corners. I make those myself using the cabinet settings. That way you can set the box size and separation to exactly what you want and it won't jump around on you either.

Ed Zachary.

I here you guys regarding uplift, shear transfer etc. but there are many ways to deal with that including the exterior sheathing connection, framing brackets, proper plate nailing, SDS screws, etc. As Robert said...it's all in the details.

I for one always frame that way for the sake of framing efficiency. In order to frame and sheath that wall while it is lying down, you need a bottom plate. In addition to the issue Parkwest mentions above the problem with using the 2x8 sill as the bottom plate is 2 fold... Tipping it up onto the anchor bolts is a huge pain. Not only do the bolts themselves get in the way and hang up the wall while it is getting stood up, but they can also be very difficult to line up after the wall is stood up. The fact the wall has to be up above the anchor bolts in order to slide down over the top of them also makes doing it this way a lot more dangerous as the bottom of the wall has to be pretty well completely disconnected from anything while performing this part of the operation. I won't go into all the details and problems involved but suffice it to say that it can really be a messy pain. In order to frame the wall properly and to tip it up in the safest and most effective manner, the bottom of the 2x8 bottom plate would need to be lined up with the inside of the foundation wall. This gives a person no really good place to pop a straight line or to temporarily fasten that bottom plate in order to ensure the bottom is straight and secure before sheathing and standing it. If the 2x8 sill is installed first, most all of the problems are reduced or completely eliminated. Actually, about 12 years ago I started adding one extra step. I would install the sill plate, tighten down all the nuts, and then I would run around with a cut off tool and cut off all the excess anchor bolt. I would then install some 3/4" plywood or common pine strips that ran from nut to nut. This would completely eliminate the need to drill out and line up the bottom plate of the wall. It also had the advantage of allowing us to use standard studs and even build a single continuous wall between the living space and garage if we were building a zero entry foundation. Anyway, there are just a few reasons why the multiple plates can be a good thing.

You're welcome. A couple more quick notes based on the above... 1. object_type is just one of the many attributes we have available. A layout page table is nothing more than a schedule and that is its object type... thus the reason for using "schedule". It just makes sense to use that particular object type as a qualifier because inside schedules is about the only place that newline wouldn't work quite right. That macro just tells Ruby to display a newline everywhere except inside schedules where it will simply display a single space. 2. Not sure whether you thought of this or not, but you can always copy/paste in place that title block text box onto every page instead of placing it on page zero. That way you can get the break wherever you want it for each and every page.

Okay Mark, just got back to the office. Here are 2 options for you. Option 1: Use an evaluated owner context macro that looks something like this... if object_type.to_s.downcase == "schedule" result = " " else result = "\n" end NOTE: You could use any number of different attributes other than the object_type (layer for example) but that one seems to be as good as any for this particular item... Option 2: Don't use a macro at all. Just resize your title's text box to the maximum width you would like to see (should automatically uncheck Auto Width) and then Center Justify it. This will cause the text to display as multiple lines on your title block but not in the Layout Page table or in the project browser. Hope one of those options gets you what you want.

Okay, now I'm confused again. Do you actually want 2 lines in the CELL or do you want 2 lines in the TITLE? Or do you actually want 2 lines in both?

Interesting. FWIW, depending on the situation there are other ways to get newlines as well such as... " "

Okay. Now this is starting to make more sense to me. You're trying to affect the page title without affecting the schedule? I think there is another way. I'll try to help you out when I get back to my computer. In short though I'm thinking you need to use a newline macro that contains a conditional statement of some sort.

I'm away from my computer so I can't test anything but here are a couple quick notes from my personal experience. 1. Using newlines to affect schedules is hardly useful. I've played with it when trying to achieve some unusual outside the box type solutions but I don't believe I recall having ever actually ended up using it. 2. To get multi-line cells I usually add spaces and not newlines. If you add the appropriate number of spaces and adjust the column width appropriately you should probably be able to get what you're after that way.

Yup. This is likely the source of your problem. I'm away from my computer right now but until the problem is fixed I would try these potential temporary solutions... -Reflect in plan view instead of the elevation view. OR After the initial left to right reflect, try to reflect again in a plan view but this time in the top to bottom direction. OR After the initial reflect, convert back to a plain polyline and then convert to a polyline solid from that. I know...all workaround solutions but they might just help keep you moving forward at least.

Polyline solids have had some buggy behavior in the past. Some of it has been fixed but maybe you found a situation that is still not behaving properly. Probably a good idea to send in to tech support detailing EXACTLY what you did to create the second group. On a side note though...Are you sure you actually used Polyline solids for the second group? Is it possible you used a slab, box, or some other object? Anyway, I would probably personally do as Eric suggested and just convert to a solid. A lot more possibilities that way anyway.

Mike, you don't have to explode anything. Just select your mulled unit in the area where the individual component window is and then hit tab to actually select the component window. Once selected, open it's DBX and uncheck "Include In Schedule". Do that for all offending windows. That should be all there is to it.

Good sleuthing Chop : ) I had just opened the plan, had added the Room Name column to the schedule and was just beginning to search the living room when you posted. The reason the labels don't show up is because "Show Component Labels" would have to be checked in order for that to happen. EDIT: I see Eric mentioned the Room Name thing too while I was typing up my response. I guess I showed up a little late this time. Good job guys.

Thanks Shane. That's very kind of you.

You're very welcome.

Get into the habit of switching your annotation set (or at least your Current CAD layer) before clicking the Auto Detail tool. This way, all that Auto Detail CAD can be placed onto its own unique layer. Then when you want to delete all that auto detail stuff all you have to do is switch to your All Off layer set, turn on just that one layer, select all, and delete. In fact, do this... Create an Auto Detail CAD layer Create an Auto Detail Layer Set that has everything turned off (or at least locked) EXCEPT for your Auto Detail CAD layer Create an Auto Detail Annotation Set and set it to use the Auto Detail CAD layer as its Current CAD layer and the Auto Detail Set as its layer set. Switch to the Auto Detail Annotation Set before clicking Auto Detail Go about your business as usual and switch back to whatever anno set you wish for all future annotations If you decide you want to refresh your Auto Detail work, simply switch back to your Auto Detail Anno Set, select all (Control + A), delete, and then click Auto Detail again.

When you click on the wall in a 3D view, by default the ROOM is selected first. Either hit tab to select the wall or go into preferences and change the behaviour here...

Depends on how accurate you need to get. I personally like accuracy and think the 2 best options are... Polyline solids applied to the surface or multiple walls and material regions set to cut finish layer. Maybe check this thread out... P.S. I think it's important to understand how that style of siding typically works. The panel layout is pretty much always designed around the particulars of each individual structure and even each individual wall. Without giving careful consideration to the layout you can very easily miss the mark. The reason I bring all this up?? Just to point out why the chances land somewhere between slim and none that you will find a material/texture that will do the trick. Besides all that, even if a random layout worked...the recessed shadow lines are really what make that look pop and the only way to get those looking correct at all your outside corners is using a 3D modeling technique of one type or another. Just my $0.02

Many many many ways to go about this but here's my take on one of the quickest and easiest to use methods... Watertop example.plan The 2 side pieces are cabinets that are essentially nothing but a tall countertop. I placed them onto their own layer so the display could be adjusted and I excluded from schedule. Flexible, easy to keep track of, and very simple to adjust as necessary. Just add to your library or toolbar for quick future use.