dshall

Okay Bill, I get your solution. That essentially is what I did in my own personal plan that I posted a picture of. But here is the challenge.... suppose the deck is at an elevation that will eventually get buried by the roof.... how do you deal with that. As you can see by Larry's plan edited by me, I have the deck getting buried into the roof...... I know, not necessarily good design.... but suppose that is what I want..... I am able to do it and I think the reason Larry was not able to do it was because of how he messes around with the floor defaults. No blame intended Larry, just an observation. My goal is to be able to build anything I want in spite of CA's supposed limitations.

Nope, I do not think that is the issue.

Okay, I ain't going to get too detailed, (Perry came up with a solution),........ but....... CA, WILL YOU PLEASE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DEAL WITH THE STORY POLES FOR LARRY? Larry, the problem is with your floor defaults and such. You have admitted that you are having problems with it and this is further evidence of this. Take a look at the pic I have attached..... oh heck, I will attach the plan...... it is too difficult to explain what I did.... but I bet if spent enough time on it, I could make it behave.... look at my pic.... note that my deck is buried into the roof, a more desirable result than what you have...... If enough people are interested, I will do a workshop on the floors defaults and such..... once in a while I have issues, but usually I can muddle my way through it because I KEEP TO THE DEFAULTS...... I get it.... not easy.... bbb for larry.plan.zip

I have been thinking about the Perry/Richard method comparing it to the method I think you and I use. And please Perry and Richard forgive me here, your system works for you........ It just seems to me that the details in a separate plan file is much easier to manipulate than what I think is the P/R method which if I understand correctly is EACH DETAIL IS SENT TO LAYOUT INDIVIDUALLY, whereas the separate plan file method means that the plan file is sent once to layout yet it can have multiple details. And then someone may talk about different scales for the details.... no problem with the Rob/Scott method. Anyway, I am trying to stimulate a debate discussing the best method. And I get it, everybody has their own way of doing things, but sometimes with a little discussion, most users can see the benefits of one system over another system. I am always open to better methods.

Here is a project I did recently. The deck is over the roof. The roof is drawn on level one, the deck on level 2, It did work, I do not think I had to do anything special. The trick was utilizing the ref sets.

If you want some opinions, maybe you can state why you put the details in a separate file vs putting the details in layout. If you make a statement, maybe others will pipe in and explain why your method is not as good as a different method. -Why wouldn't you put them in a CAD detail in the plan file? -Why wouldn't you send the details directly to layout like Perry and Richard do? -Why do you think it is better to put in a separate plan file vs the Direct To Layout method. -Why wouldn't you use CA's method.... BTW, what is CA's method? Stick your foot in the water and create a ripple, I bet you will start a very interesting discussion.

The more I know the more difficult it is to answer these kinds of questions. It's like when my client asks, "can I build a 120 sf deck above my house and paint it pink and support it with one 3-1/2" dia. steel column?" answer... "errrr, if you have enough money, you can do almost anything, but is it the best way to achieve what you want?" I am sure you get my drift JPC. It's these kinds of questions that are great, but there is no easy answer, I feel like somehow we need to get a list of these questions, get a bunch of users together and discuss the pros and cons. But it will probably never happen.

So weird, I tried it again and it still does not behave like Robert's plan. Is it because I am on a MAC? is it because I am a Cowboy fan? Is it because today's day ends in a "y"? I do not know. George, I can't help you.

Interesting, I tried that too but was not successful.

Your house is a distance from absolute zero, but I would not think too far. It is a mystery. As a test, do a save as, delete all, build rectangle house, put roof on and frame and see if it happens again..... purpose being, is it your particular file. Is it possible there is a setting in there that we are missing. If you opened a new plan and built rectangle house would it behave as expected.

Weird, I also tried turning off USE FRAMING REFERENCE and now look at the behavior. I can not explain it.

No worries, JPC, I know what you are saying, you are one of the best at not taking things too personal and that is what it is all about, let's all learn together..

Maybe, maybe not, interesting that I did those videos 4.5 years ago and we are now discussing how to use anno sets. Are there any other videos or incisive threads that came up in the last 4.5 years in regards to how to utilize anno sets and the MRLS ? I stand by those vids, I still use the technique to this day, is there a better or more efficient way to use them? If so, I am all ears, we intermediate users need all the help we can get. Anno Set for Dummies they aren't the best vids, but then I ain't the smartest guy around.

Ouch, that hurt JPC, but probably well deserved, thanks for putting me in my place. BTW, a couple of good games tonight, I will pick the Eagles over the Falcons and I will pick the 49ers's over the Vikings......

At the UGM I believe I learned that it was Dermot that came up with the ANNO set concept, a huge time saver. Wendy in a prior post talked about how the anno sets saved 14 clicks, I agree, the anno sets saved clicks. What Moe is referring to is fine tuning the anno set concept to save a few more clicks.

JPC, you might be correct, but I cannot follow what you are saying. As I said about 58 posts ago, this is probably a situation where it takes a GTM to explain what the issue is. I think I know what Moe is saying. Her position makes perfect sense to me.... in fact I could expound on what she is saying.

Dermot, I appreciate this, but if Moe cannot explain it in her first thread, and if I can't explain it in follow up threads, I doubt another stab by me will be effective. If nobody else has the problem, then Moe and I do not know what we are doing. However, if you are interested in teaching me what I am doing wrong, I bet in a 4m minute GTM I can show you what Moe and I are looking for.

Yep, way off base.

I don't know what the issue is either. It's a non issue, it's Monday night football tonight! The Chargers won, the Cowboys won, life does not get much better.

Well, if it is only Moe Gia and I that have this issue, it is probably not an issue, we shall let it die a quiet death.

Posting a plan is an option, however, maybe someone can post a plan and layout that works and let's see if the posted plan and layout works for me.... I bet it will not work correctly... ..... JB, please post a very quick down and dirty layout with a plan file attached, I would bet it does not work as I and Moe would like it to work.

What is so frustrating to me with these kinds of posts is somebody says the sky is blue and some one else says it is green and that is where it ends. There is no consenses in regards to who is right. There must be a way that the two people can get together, share what they are seeing and then reach a mutual agreement. BTW, who is right is not important, what is important is for someone like Moe to be able to get her point across and for someone at headquarters to understand what she is saying and then for the person at headquarters to show her what she is doing wrong or learn what the issue is.

I said this a few posts ago........ Maybe we are not all seeing something funny going on, but I am and apparently Moe is a bit confused.... not a killer issue for me.... but I think it is there...... If I could post a vid I would....... but the vid gods are against me, anyway, I was just able to reproduce MoeGia's issue, and I concur with her, I understand what she is complaining about.... there is an issue she is trying to convey with headquarters... hopefully headquarters will try to find out.... I am on the phone with GTM now, maybe they can help me post my vids so I can show what I think MoeGia's issue is.

Interesting, I looked into this, I completely agree with Moe that the view selected should remember it's anno and layer set, however it seems to work for some plan views and not others....... I can't put my finger on it. Try this, go to layout and ..... open your floor plan, you get the proper anno and layer set open your framing plan, you get the proper anno and layer set open your foundation plan, you get the proper anno and layer set all is good so far,.... now tile the 3 plans vertically and alternate between selecting the different plan views, sometimes you get the correct anno and layer sets and sometimes you don't..... it's weird, it is not consistent...... I agree with Moe, if I select a plan view I should always see the proper anno and layer set. I think we are all seeing something funny, I am not sure if any of us can properly explain the behavior without doing a GTM to explain and discuss the inconsistencies.

This statement confuses me. Are you talking about lines weights for PLAN FILES or are you talking about line weights for LALYOUT FILES? I assume you are talking about PLAN FILES, if this is correct, then line weight of 200 would be way to heavy for me....... but... but...... I think this is dependent on what is spec'd out in the DRAWING SHEET SETUP<ADVANCED LINE WEIGHT OPTION.............. I bring this up for a newbie that may be reading this...... point being the line weights basis can be controlled by several different defaults........ oh so confusing........ all I know is football starts this weekend and hopefully the LA Chargers will have a good year before they locate in Perry's back yard....... that will be a sad day for us folks living on the border.