dshall

I started to respond, but decided not to, yeah JC, I see it as you do. Does not get any better or flexible than the existing system of layer defines line characteristics.

Let's think about this. There have been a lot of folks who would like to use the MATCH PROPERTIES OF option that is not available in CA What CA has to offer is the LAYER DICTATES LINE STYLE Two different options that may be confusing if both are available. ......... just thinking guys........ if you had to choose, which one would you want? I suppose you could have both working for you...... I suppose..... I have become accustom to the layer defines the line type...... think about it..... I think this is really the way to go because....... I use the same line for different layer sets, so I would like to be able to control the line type via the layer set...... if I used the match same line type, that line will have the same properties irrespective of the layer set that is using it. What I am saying is I think you may be wishing for something that will not be as flexible as if you were to get accustom to using the layer for the line attributes...... CA has got this one right if you were to ask me.

Agree, the easiest way.

Yeah Perry, we discussed this method. Of course there are other idiosyncrasies that we must understand, i.e. the view in render vs the view in vector.

Yes, you need a TEXT BOX with an arrow pointing to the polyline...... however.... when you have multiple boxes on top of each other, this method is not reliable..... the arrow can very easily get confused as to which POLYLINE it is associated with. It is very important that we can trust the area of the polyline. As of now, I do not trust the area of the pollylines.

Exactly, the point is you can not do what you want to do at this point easily. Hence, the request for a LABEL for a closed PLINE that will have a LABEL, the label should have an AREA associated with it, and this AREA should be flexible enough that whatever that LABEL/AREA says, can be used AS A MACRO that can then be used in different applications. I have spoken about this before, I have requested this but as of yet, no one at headquarters has said, "gee dip sh** hall, that is a great idea".

No, no trick, best suggestion is to create a layer that the cad line goes on, and any cad line you put on that layer will take on the layer properties. Very powerful if you learn to use it correctly.

So what is your point? I think the OP wants to be able to delineate specific areas and to take that FLOOR AREA and put it somewhere. If I am wrong, I apologize. We must learn to be more specific about the point we are trying to make.

So what, what are you saying?

....... and feel confident about what you have..... NO. This has been discussed and it would be a great addition. To be specific..... in my mind..... I would like to be able to create closed plines which would have a LABEL associated with the pline, and the info of that pline, i.e. area..... be used in multiple locations, i.e. FLOOR AREA ANALYSIS TEXT BLOCKS.

Lynn said this a lot 18 years ago, now, not so much. I will pass your kind words onto her.

You must be doing something wrong...... see if you can explain yourself better and maybe somebody can figure out what you are doing wrong.

This is a very good tip. But the question is, why would we have so many layer sets? Because we find they are very useful when building a model. I do not think anybody adds layer sets for the fun of it. So the number of layer sets are determined by the way we work. Now the question is can we minimize the number of anno sets. Yes, I believe the number of anno sets can be minimized because one anno set may work with many different layer sets. So for those that do not link anno sets to layer sets, this works very well. But for those of us that link anno sets and layer sets together, this does not work very well. Thus, layer sets should be king. Anno sets should not be king. If we all notice, most power users have more layer sets than anno sets...... layer sets should be king. I know, I am beating the drum to a deaf audience. As one "great man" said, ( I think it was Jim Lawes), Anno sets being King is like the tail wagging the dog.......... "great man" .... may be a little over the top but who cares, let's call Jim a "Great Man" for this argument.

I do not see the toe kick as a BIG PROBLEM. The toe kick never seems to work for many custom applications, but the solution is pretty simple. Eliminate the toe kick, shorten the height of the cabinet by 4" and then raise the cabinet off the floor by 4" and then add a psolid 4" tall toe kick. Sounds more complicated than it is..... a Tim O'Donnell solution...... where is that guy? He and Glenn Woodward are in the same class.

Thanks JC, very nice. Hopefully with X7 we will be able to provide niches. OTH, not too tough with the symbol you provided. Hope the back is better.

Then what did you see?

Don't delete them.

Glenn, I must be missing something. See post #6. That is what I want. I believe it takes two separate cabinets. I think you are saying you can do it with one cabinet. I agree you can put some PANELS on the sides, but you can not put doors with door knobs, and they certainly will not show opening indicators and you will not be able to stack doors on top of each other on all 3 faces. I understand what I show is probably not practical, but I am trying to do something the OP wants.

Obscure? 1,1, as in the first thing to check. Hot keys that start with F are for FRAMING hot keys.

And I use GW's hot keys...... we get to the same place via different methods.... not important how, but that we can.

km's, what the heck are km's, will you guys ever learn to speak English? Miles my friend it's miles, anyway, km's or miles, you are right, it's still a long way........ hmmmmmm... isn't Frankfort even further away from Paradise than the Seychelles.

All right all right, I was being a bit of a dunderhead...... but....... with the corner cab solution, and Glenn, yes you can do that with a pantry, but you can also do that with a corner upper or a corner base...... but but but....... it takes some work to get a door at the "FRONT"....... I think my two cabinet solution still might be best.

Boy, I wish you could post a plan or be more specific, I don't get the process GW is espousing.

Hi GW, You are absolutely correct in everything you said. I was thinking about you and Jennie the other day hoping you guys enjoyed your river cruise. Of course I am very envious. The other day I was corresponding with Antoine who lives in the Seychelles , I don't know if you caught that, but he offered to pick up any CA user from the main island and he would take you over to his personal island, and again I thought of you and Jennie. You guys are so close, you might consider taking him up on the offer. He did not say whether or not he would book a room for you in the expensive hotel over there or whether he would offer you a room in his palatial palace on his own personal island...... actually he only owns a third of it.......... that might sound like a big place but........ I bet it's only half the size of Joe Carrick's estate...... or what's left of it after his kitchen fire. His wife should keep him out of the kitchen from here on out. Say hi to Jennie, and have a safe flight back to paradise.

Now I am not sure what the problem was. I was thinking that the furred walls, whether part of conc wall or not (non room def wall etc.), was not being included in the material take off. I think the furred out walls (the 2x4 framing) IS INCLUDED IN MATERIAL LIST, and I thought Robert was saying is was not, I just tested and the 2x furred walls are included. But still the 2x4 furred studs DO NOT SHOW IN 3D , I think they should..... (assuming the studs are not a main layer wall. GW, I'm with you, I do not understand Robert's issue. Sorry Robert, I think I referred to you as Randy before.