dshall

....... that is my reply

JC, how would you use what you want to do. If you have it defined as hanging on wall, why the 6" separation and how would you use it?

Okay Doug, so I get this. But how does Joe do what he wants to do and is it possible? Joe, I think this is a bounding box issue. But if I am not mistaken, the bounding boxing can be relocated towards the front and sides, but it is always stuck at the back of the symbol. Trying to wrap my head around this and have not quite figured it out. I do not think it is possible to do what you want UNLESS, you add a very very very small cube, 6" behind your cube, and turn that into a symbol. The purpose of the very small additional cube is so you will not see it in 3d, but it will act as a place holder for you. But if you do what I just suggested, there is no longer a need to offset the origin in the y direction. EDIT: It seems like what we need is a WALL OFFSET DISTANCE, similar to the HEIGHT OFF FLOOR option.

I am not sure if I agree with you. How would Joe do what HE wants. He wants the cube 6" away from wall in both plan and 3d. I wonder if this has anything to do with mt CABINET OUTLETS not appearing correctly in plan and 3d.

This is a great comment. We rarely talk about overlaying an existing elevation over a proposed elevation, but it is a nice option.

JC, I've been doing a few decks lately. Using area drains, trying to limit max. Change in drop to 2", IOW, max 8' run to a drain. Using multiple area drains in lieu of scuppers for overflows. I am finding I am putting the drains I centers of decks vs at perimeter walls. Any comments?

That should not happen and it does not happen to me. It must be something you are doing......... but Buddy, let me tell you, if there is some little glitch in there, and it was not your fault, I would not be surprised. Does it happen every time? Or every other time? Can you not do a SAVE AS at all?

With your method the cross section is wrong. Pick your poison, not a super solution available.

I believe there have been several threads on this. a solution is two roof planes. One for the gable end without boxed eave and the other a roof plane over main portion of the house with a soffit. I am not sure if the results are that great.

Yep, I am annoyed. The OP got his answer very quickly. What else does he expect to hear from people who use this program? It's a great program, if it wasn't, we would be using something else. I am with Jim, this was a very informative thread and quite frankly I would rather learn something new at the risk of hijacking a thread. There are probably a hundred different threads on why this program is preferrable over another. But how many threads thrash out what we just spent over a hundred posts thrashing out? Jeez guys, look at the positives that came out of this thread. The OP gets a lot of props from me because he stimulated this conversation. Barton, you should be thanking those that contributed to your education in lieu of bashing them. Unbelievable.

Never knew it was there.

Yes, thanks Glenn . I sent to tech support, the following is their explanation, thanks Taylor. Hello Scott, Thank you for contacting Technical Support with this. I will submit this to the developers, however I thought you'd appreciate an explanation as to what is happening with the Enter Coordinates dialog. First, it doesn't matter what angle the line is at, it only matters where on the line it's being selected. I've tested this back to X4, so I'm not entirely sure how far back it goes, but it's not a new issue with X6 by any means. Attached are some visual aids, but essentially what is happening is that when you grab a line and hit TAB or ENTER to display the Enter Coordinates dialog, the Angle automatically fills with relative a Polar Angle, however when selecting a point off-center on the line, you will notice the Angle changes from what it should be -- the angle becomes more shallow the further from center you select. If I were to guess, it is basing the Angle off of the selected point on the line and treating that as the "Relative to Start" point. With the incorrect angle, it then measures out the Distance from the selected point, rather than a 90° angle from the line's original position, and moves the line Polar to it's original location. Check out the screenshots, as it makes way more sense to see it. For now, of course the fix is to just select the center of the line, however you can also manually enter the correct angle in which the line is to move. I hope this clears up the confusion as to what it's doing, and as I said, I'll send this off to the developers to look into further. Taylor Chief Architect Technical Support

Larry, quick vid if interested. http://youtu.be/T3PH0anMD-A

You got me there. But Jim, I think I now have your "TAB DISEASE" The move by tab is not working for me now. Take a look at quick vid, it's like your initial vid. I did post plan to see if somebody can replicate my issue. This is a serious problem THE VID http://youtu.be/DVzNQTPhh7s EDIT: I just figured out what I was doing wrong, and I think Jim eluded to this in a prior post and I did not pick up on it. You must move the line from it's CENTER POINT. I had not realized that before. Why is that? That should not be necessary. JIMS SCREW UP DIMENSION VID PLAN 1.plan.zip

Jim, I retested and CA has it correct. I typed in 5.333' which is not 5'4, it is 5'-3-3/8, If I type in 5.333333333', I get 5'-3-15/16". .333' is not 4" but just short of 4".

what ever works with the least amount of work. I don't set the jump distance...... why? ..... I don't know, maybe because I do not now how to do it. I thought the method I showed was probably about as easy as it gets. Hexagon, pentagon, triangle, who cares, they all work the same.

I added part 3, it works for me.

It's up now.

Here is a link to the vid. Good vid unless you already know this stuff. The POLAR OFFSET works as advertised. PART 1 longer than it should be http://youtu.be/Ci2OJFgAlso PART 2 short and sweet, (difference in copy and move or copy in place and then move, very interesting http://youtu.be/s2xS-kn--wQ PART 3 http://youtu.be/c9DddHXesC8 I have beaten this to death, it works for me.

I guess that is why I prefaced my comment with the fact that I understand the stretch command as much as I understand my wife. I fake my understanding, it limits my exposure to any sort of legal action?

I do not believe this to be so Larry. I will incorporate in tomorrow's vid. The edit cad STRETCH is something I rarely use because I understand this about as much as I understand my wife, but it does work.

Thanks Glenn, just want to make sure we are on same page. I love if when we can come to a consensus. To summarize, I believe you will get different results depending on whether you concentrically resize from a corner of a pentagon or resize from a PLACED POINT IN MIDDLE OF A SIDE OF PENTAGON. very important to understand the different behaviors,

What is so revealing about this thread is there are 3 experienced users that can not come to a consensus. Jim is completely lost, Glenn is trying to clue him in..... As I am, but I think even Glenn and I would not agree on how to carry out what I perceive to be a very simple task, therefore Jim has probably learned nothing. I did a vid on this several months ago, and if I am not mistaken, there is a secret handshake to concentricly resizing a pentagon that is not orthogonal.

Glenn, did you post the following and then delete. I found this in my email. "To move a particular SIDE a defined perpendicular distance. That's and easy one. Concentric Edit mode, drag an tab, enter distance. I think this would be what we would want to do 99% of the time. I do not think that in the last 40 years I have ever wanted to resize a pentagon by a ratio of of 1.25. You never know, and good to know that we can do it if needed!"

Looks like you did nothing wrong. But I bet you 3 chicken necks and a plate of collard greens that I can make it work in the AM.