dshall

Video here, Glenn solution of course is the best..... if you have X6, otherwise there is another method for those using older versions of CA. http://youtu.be/SObDUevFctI Not a bad vid.

I think TB understands this as do I, totally separate issue.

I love these kinds of things, if nobody else looks at it and if I have time in the am, I will take a look. These darn garages and there sills ain't too cool...... but I will take a look if time permits.

Not at office.

If that is an auto foundation, I have not a clue how you got the stud wall, sill plate and concrete wall all out of some kind of alignment.

Your pic looks like you got what you wanted. That being said, please don't get me going on sill plates etc., Tell me what is wrong with pic.

My apologies Larry, that is exactly what I am saying...... you are correct. But of course, once you have the same number of layers, what controls which layer overlaps the other? It is the THROUGH WALL AT START. Thanks Larry for helping me reinforce the point.

If I had to guess, none of the responses answered the question. I do not think the OP is a regular user, but for the rest of the users, I think he is referring to what is seen at a corner where a brick veneer wall meets a stucco veneer wall. IOW, how does one control whether the brick overlaps the stucco, or whether the stucco overlaps the brick. I believe there are several ways to control this. One is whether one uses the THROUGH WALL AT START option. I think that helps in a many instances. However, I did a vid on this, and I think another option has to do with specifically designing walls types in such a way the the number of WALL LAYERS on the exterior face of the wall type are the same. I will say that again, I think having an equal number of wall layers on the exterior face of exterior walls has some advantages..... of course I could be wrong since I did not reverify this. EDIT: I just verified this, having an equal number of layers at the each exterior face of a wall IS VERY IMPORTANT when deciding whether the brick overlaps the stucco or whether the stucco overlaps the brick.

Yes, that is what I have now. But I do not save MY STUFF to his folder. I have a separate folder where I save his stuff. But you have me rethinking my process. If I send him a link to MY/HIS FOLDER, which has only his stuff in it (no other clients info), he can access all of his files, but he cannot alter them. That is essentially the goal. Now I must reconcile the fact that he will have access to ALL of the info in MY/HIS FOLDER. May be doable, I just have to consider if I ever put anything in his folder, which is also MY FOLDER with all his stuff in it, do I have a problem with him viewing any of the info....... maybe not. Thanks for your thoughts Robert. Not completely a solution I was hoping for, but might not be a problem.

Oooh, I get it, hey thanks Robert, I will give it a try. But now that I think of it, that would mean I would have to send him a new link for each project I send him. I do many jobs for him during the year. As of now, I simply put a NEW CLIENT folder in HIS DROP BOX, no need to share a new folder. No perfect solution...... I am trying not to think as much.......

I think you are missing the point. I have already shared the folder with him. It is a matter of putting a pdf in a folder in my drop box, and not allowing him to alter what is in the drop box.

I am not sure if I understand. Would this require a new link with every new pdf in folder?

I am on a MAC. All of my files are on drop box. I have a folder within my drop box folder called CLIENT SHARED DROP BOX FOLDER. I have a folder within the shared client folder for putting the printed pdf files so my client can access the printing. When I save a pdf, I save a copy in my own drop box folder, and then I make a copy and put it in my clients shared drop box folder. I do not always remember to make a copy of the pdf to share with my client. So what if I make an ALIAS of the PRINTING FOLDER IN MY DROP BOX (remember I am on a MAC), and I put that alias folder into my clients shared drop box. My client now has access to all of the printing in my drop box folder, and I do not need to remember to copy the pdf file and put it in my client's shared drop box folder. Problem: my client can now delete those files. Solution..... lock the folder, this way the client can copy the pdf but he can not delete the pdf files. Problem with this is to add or take anything out of the shared drop box folder, I must unlock and then relock folder to add or delete anything. I do not know if having to unlock and relock the folder is any quicker or easier than simply copying the pdf into the shared folder. Any comments? I am trying to simplify my methods. I suppose what I am wishing is that I can add to my printing folder within my own drop box without have to unlock and relock the folder. Not CA's issue, more of a drop box issue, just wondering if anybody has a solution to this.

That's funny, I think I am almost as hard headed as you.

This is very true. However, if you drag the fireplace down 12", you can go into the dvx and add 12" to the hearth height. Now you will have the fireplace box go to the grade, yet the hearth will not disappear. I rarely use this tool anymore. Most of my fireplaces are prefab. If I do a masonry fireplace it is an outdoor fireplace and I then build out of psolids because it is usually a very custom fireplace and the CA fireplace tool can not handle the design.

Yes, I agree with this, but eliminating anno sets isn't necessary, leaving annosets does give more options...... however with the process I currently use, I have no problem keeping or eliminating annosets........ using anno sets and layer sets is not confusing, what is confusing is defining what is important to maximize the versatility of their usage....... and what I just wrote can be very confusing and is not very clear...... ...... hey CA, you did a good job, the only change I advocate is to make layer sets KING.......... ...... one final note...... what we are talking about cannot be fully debated on this forum, it would take a real time meeting with those that are interested to discuss the pros and cons of which is the best method.

I have no clue what you are talking about. Are you talking about what CA should do to change the process, or are you suggesting that we can already do this and we should make the change? Does not matter, I will do a workshop and maybe the attendees will explain to me what I may be missing. Bottom line, I like the system with the exception of what should be king...... ANNO SETS or LAYER SETS, I think they should change the system from anno sets being king to layer sets being king.

You got Bernie.

Use an awning window

I do not understand Joe's approach. Does anybody else get if ? If Joe is correct, I have been missing something. If Joe is correct, maybe a workshop will help me understand.

Apparently I am missing something. I thought I needed a different layer set for my two different site plans sent to layout. If I send one site plan to layout at 1"=10' and one site plan sent to layout at 1"=60', I need a different layer sets for each to control the TEXT SIZE. If I use the same layer set for each, the text will be the same size, and of course i would assume I would like the text for the 1"=60' LARGER than the text for the view that is sent at 1"=10'.

Joe, feel that I understand this fairly well, and I use them all the time. A comment, you said that you use the annoset to trigger the layer set. This is what I do. HOWEVER........ I think CA made a mistake here. I do not think the anno set should trigger the layer set, I think the layer set should trigger the anno set. If this was the case, there would be fewer anno sets. I use a multitude of layers sets that could utilize a single anno set. I do not think a multitude of anno sets can utilize a single layer set. This results in more anno sets than I need, but I need these to trigger a particular layer set. I am working on a project from a common client of ours, and they have attempted to simplify this process, I am trying to work within their system, but I find myself adding additional layer and anno sets along with additional layers. Nuts, this is can be very complicated to have one system that works for all users. I think the system utilized will be unique to each user. Bottom line for the post, I think CA should change this from anno sets triggering layer sets to layer sets triggering anno sets.

It's a no brainer. Would use this on every job. Project info should be expandable.

Must be careful with this. Hog wire is similar to a chain length fence which can bog a machine down. Many many faces. The molding idea is good, but I would recommend wire with square cross section profile vs round cross section. An alternative would be a MATERIAL on a PANEL for the hog wire.

I totally agree, it is the users on this forum that give CA the extra value that the other programs do not have. Maybe I am missing something, but I have looked at the forums for other programs and I do not believe their forums have anywhere near the help that this forum offers.