dshall

That is not a bug. That is how wide your railing is. Open wall dvx and check it out. Now, how do I handle it? I rarely get the railing I want in CA, so I build my railings out of MOLDINGS. So with the wall that defines the deck, I make is 1/16" thick (double line), I then put that rail wall on a separate layer and I can then use that layer to show my deck in site plan, floor plan etc..... it seems I get more control and the line of deck shows as a single line since it is so narrow.

Layout on left, plan on right, I see the HANDICAP SIGN label in layout. was this the problem?

Mon Cherie, your plan template will never be perfect. It will be forever evolving. That is why I advocate the SAM. But whatever method, try to get over the idea of waiting for your template plan, don't let that stop you from working on a new plan with whatever template you have at the time.

What Jona-Thank did not explain very well is what your are recessing is the CASING. Suppose you do not have casing, you can control the recessing of the FRAME...... WINDOW DBX<FRAME, A definite distinction. Hey Jona-Thank, see you in Idaho.

Take it a step further... a separate FURNITURE WAREHOUSE PLAN, or a PENDANT LIGHT WAREHOUSE PLAN, etc. As you can guess, this method is much quicker to accessing often used symbols than getting the items out of the CA library.

Why don't you post a plan? I just don't get it, why do you expect us to guess? Don't you think it would be easier if we had an example of the problem? I know I could guess based on the info you give us, but come on.... 25% of the time the guess is still wrong and we go around and around,

Okay, so what does that mean? Did you solve it? If not, do you want me to guess some more at a solution or do you want to post the problem cabinet.

Put the notes in a CAD DETAIL , either in your layout or in plan and send to layout, easy peasy. I would keep all notes out of library. If they are in library I think they are harder to find. If you want to store them someplace, store them in a WAREHOUSE NOTE PLAN, if you want a note, open the WAREHOUSE NOTE PLAN that has all notes, copy the one you need and put it in new plan. Often times the users have better methods than CA advocates. We do it every day, we have learned methods that are quicker and easier.

Here is my task, suppose I want to do what you did, how would I do that? Yea, how did you do what you did?

... and a separation at top... it's probably a problem with you cabinet defaults.

..... I bet you don't have a separation at the bottom.

Not sure what the problem is.

Thanks Bill, I think I can almost do what you did.... but.... I can't figure out the geometric structure of the ellipse. I am looking it up on line and I have not quite figured it out. I do not know how you did it. I remember about 42 years ago, on a wednesday, my drafting instructor taught me the geometry, but I think I was busy dodging spitballs to fully grasp what he was talking about. Any hints?

Actually, if you turn on auto roofs, you will get a gambrel roof which is not what Jon wanted. So maybe you started with a gambrel roof, but you then turned of auto roof build and made the roofs curved. Maybe you said that, but it was not clear to me, you did do some manual editing. Maybe the manual editing is responsible for the lower ridge angle not matching the upper fascia angle. Again props, better than anybody else has done.

Very good, however two questions.... 1: if you wanted, could you build manually? 2: Why don't you think the pitch of fascia of upper roof matches the pitch of ridge of the lower roof? Don't you think these should be equal. But props for what you did.

Hey Mark, darn good effort on your part. I wish you would do a vid on your process. Did you get my complaint that I could not set the eave and fascia angles? Nice job.

Marc, I cannot read your file. Did you close the file before you attached?

Here is my frustration. There are 4 variables, 1. ANGLE AT EAVE 2. ANGLE AT RIDGE 3. RADIUS AT ROOF SURFACE 4. FACET ANGLE (I IGNORE THIS, I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO USE IT) It seems like I should be able to define two of the first 3 variables and the other variable will auto correct. It does not work. Why can't I define the ANGLE AT EAVE and the ANGEL AT RIDGE and the RADIUS AT ROOF SURFACE auto corrects? If I could do this I would make Jon Caffee very happy. Okay CA, how would you do what Jon Caffee wants. It should be relatively simple. Sorry Jon, I can't do it. But I would think that 3 curved roof planes will get you what you want if we could control the first 3 variables.

If you understand an ellipse, it is simple 4 arches with different read.... I will see if I have time later

An option, however I think I would put them under the upper cabs (mounted to underside of upper cabs), so I would not see them.

Jon, I took your 3 lane arch model and made the middle roof an arch, (you had it flat). I think this approach is a step closer to what you want. I do not have time to truly figure it out and I am wondering how easy it would be to replicate the profile you want. I would think you could do a cad line following the curve of your roof, and then break that ellipse/oval into 3 segment and from there maybe you can model the three roof planed it requires to build what you want. Nice challenge, if I have time later I will take a stab at it.' The attached model is only me messing around with your 3 plane arch where I made the middle roof arched. bell roof 02 scott 1.plan

This is getting pretty heavy and I am sure most readers are not understanding what we are talking about.... I barely understand what I am talking about. But if you are correct, and the method you are referring to is easier than the MRLS and just as flexible, I am all for it.

Holy Kamoly, I did not know that. Someone was asking the other day whether they should use HD or Chief, here is the answer... get full version so there are no limitations, especially if this is your profession. I apologize Hossier Daddy, I did not know you were using HD and I do not understand the limitations of HD, my bad.

I understood what Mon Cherie understood, but I believe that is a misunderstanding. I think Mick built it more correctly than Gel. Gel has 8' plates, Mick has 9' plates, I think she wants 9' plates with the ability to drop ceiling down to 8'. Diane does not fully understand what she wants and what she is doing.

Very disappointing that you do not understand that you can do manual roofs on separate buildings. I do it all the time.