dshall

Lew, you find fault with everything CA does. Glenn's response was so perfect, we are not nitwits, we cannot expect CA to compensate for our ignorance, learn how the program works and most warnings will not be necessary. There is nothing wrong with making suggestions to CA to make improvements to make our job easier. But let's use some common sense. We cannot expect CA to make allowances for everything we may bungle. This warning message is akin to McDonald's having to put a warning message on their coffee cups, "The coffee in this cup may be hot, please be careful", or the warning message on a lawn mower, "Do not put hands under mower when mower blades are spinning" or "Do not drive this car over a cliff, you may crash and burn". I wonder if back in WWII there was a message on each and every grenade, "Please throw grenade within 10 seconds of pulling pin, if you don't, the grenade will explode and blow your hand off". Those knuckleheads at CA have enough &*^%$^ to fix without having to program inane alert messages. I sure wish CA would make elevations auto update......... and FIX THE STAIRS........ but before you do, will you please get me another cup of coffee, thanks CA.

Graeme did not answer the question, Jintu is only referring to floor overviews and not plan views, Allen's solution will work but I do not think it is the best.... who wants extra invisible walls hanging around to get in the way....... an option would be to use CAD to show the stairs but is it not "live", the best answer is to use the REF SET aka the MRLS.

That is some good stuff Jon. It would be great if you would teach a workshop explaining your methods using GTM . You know what, if anybody out there would like to share how they do this kind of stuff, I would be more than happy to host a workshop. Some really nice stuff Jon, thanks.

Most of the time I only want to see a warning warning me there is a warning coming up.

Alert! Stupid question coming up...... why can't we use the spline tool..... what happens? I assume if I then moved the light fixture the spline would not follow. Yeah, why can't we use an ELECTRICAL SPLINE TOOL? This way we could control the shape.

No, this was not the issue, and based on Todd's response in POST 12, I do not think he understands what he did wrong or how it works. Heck fire, I barely understand how this works.

Nice job Graeme. How did you get the 2x4 nailers at the bottom of truss to show up? Is that cad in section view or are they live 2x4's....... pardon me, I am not sure what you guys call 2x4's down under.

Absolutely, ........

Well Johnny, you succeded in demonstrating 2 additional methods, neither one is my method nor Jim's method.

It's auto spell Glenn, and I am too lazy to fight it. I suppose I could capitalize it, I will give it a play.

It is a little slower, but not a deal breaker...... but slower in plan..... in floor overview using elec anno set, as quick as it should be...... yes, in plan a bit slower scrolling in and out but again, not a deal breaker for me... I assume you know the back wall is not square to front wall...... yes the right wall is not square and I am sure that is intentional, the left wall is square.

And while you are at it, select your PAGE NUMBER on the layout page on sheet ZERO, open dvx, and right now it shows "%page.print%", put a "P-" in front so it reads "P-%page.print%" if you want the letter "P" in front of the page number.

Why you knucklehead....... go to sheet two of layout..... open LAYOUT PAGE INFORMATION and put "P-#" in the LABEL box.... and all will be well.

I agree with Jim.... except...... and I am not sure what actually happens out in the field, and the difference is so small..... and Jim's method might be what they do in the field.... however I do it just a little differently...... first I build manually.... not a big deal..... but here is the difference..... Jim matched elevation heights of the fascias and I match heights at the plate line. Jim matched elevation heights of the fascias whilst maintaining the exact same overhang, however, technically, the plate heights on the angled walls are technically about 3/4" higher than the standard plate height...... not noticeable...... I maintain the same plate height at angled walls but because I do..... my eaves are actually an inch or two longer at angled walls. My hips meet exactly at the angle where the two walls meet, Jim's do not. I am splitting hairs, I only bring this up so you understand there are two approaches with two results that are almost imperceptible. I do not know what method they use in the field. I think both work...... I should ask a framer what he would do...... I bet they don't even realize the two approaches.... they probably use whatever they have been using since day one. Jim, you understand the difference, have you ever actually asked a framer what he does?

Not dumb on your part, you don't completely understand how these bays work. They can be tricky if you do not know what you are doing. Here is a pic. Note I have two additional roof planes that you do not have.

Try this Mr. McCrump Kevin Amaro fix bay.plan.zip

BTW, what is a large lot? When does the lot become too big for CA to handle. The examples I see here are not large lots in my mind. CA handle's these quite well. I think they are all under an acre. I am working on a project now that has a 5 acre lot. No problems yet and there is some definite elevation changes. I think it would be good for us to keep track of when a lot becomes too big for CA to handle. Is it 6 acres or 10 acres or 20 acres? I do not know. Glenn has done some larger lots and he has not had problems, but I do not know how large they are. Let's keep track of this and if you are working on a lot that is over 5 acres, maybe you can post what your results have been. When I finish my project, I will post and let you guys know of my experiences.

Close plan and reopen to see if you get the layout page numbers as expected. I assume the section are not on sheet zero but are on sheets 1 & 2

You are not being very clear. But if I was to guess, you have put the SAME SECTION on two different sheets in layout and the section bubble is confused as to what sheet the section is on in layout..... and why wouldn't it be confused, it is on two different sheets in layout.

My suggestion would be to post the plan as well as an as built with the kitchen in place and let whoever has the time to design it for you with the given parameters. I would bet you will get about 10 different ideas and you could choose the one that works best for you. At the risk of being a bit mean, I do not think you have a lot of experience and I think the plan you show can be vastly improved upon.

I will give you three wishes: 1. Auto update elevations 2. Auto update elevations 3. Auto update elevations

Jeff, you might want to repost this in the new forum....... If I think it is what I think it is. This was a great post Jeff, but I never understood your explanation. May you can repost this in the new forum and if you wouldn't mind, explain your method again.

I love CA on the MAC.

See attached

I find that some things can never be repeated too often. Sometimes what is written in the first post does not register until it is stated again in a second post. In fact what you said Tommy did not register with me, even after I reread it. Perry's post registered with me me. So I say it again, some things need to be repeated a second time using different verbiage until it registers. GO COWBOYS!!!