dshall

I think the idea was to temporarily turn off the shingles without changing the material to expose the ply. Similar to being able to selectively turn off a floor finish and then the floor ply to show the floor joists.

CA has not always been the best when dealing with customers. Overall I think the support is good. It just so happens that I am not sure if some of the personnel who handles the phone lines are very good with dealing with clients. Some of the staff needs to take a lesson in listening to their customers while being able to subtlety telling their clients to pack sand without their customers knowing it. I should probably take the same class. Ahhhh, the art of the salesman, there is a reason why good sales people make good money. On a positive note, CA personnel are always available, something that many companies do not offer these days. It is hard to form a negative feeling about a companies personnel when you can't even speak to them.

Post 40, I did a vid,

Interesting question. No. But if you do an OVERVIEW, you can use the surface delete tool to eliminate the shingles and see only the ply. I do not think there is a layer where as you can turn off shingles and see the ply. Turn off roof layer and you lose the shingles, ply and roof framing.

Play around with the FLOOR SURFACES layer and the ROOMS layer, you should be able to figure it out from there.

I think it was Allen brown that supplied the volute.

Nice job P., throw that into your plans and the "enhanced" elevation is a non starter.

Looks good P. Yeah Joe, the artistic look will take more time, that ain't for me, what P. just showed is good enough for me. If I want something really nice, I will include a 3D view which is a thousand times better than any 2D representation and it takes less time. I get what you are trying to do, you are thinking as a hand drafter would think, I am past that, there are some things I am willing to give up on working with the computer.

So the question is why do I like my method more than the psolid or symbol method: 1. It reads better in vector view (you get an extra line in vector view with the other method) 2. In a section cut you get the double line which is the drywall (you do not get the double line for drywall with the other method) 3. You get some representation of framing, i.e. double top plates (you get no framing with the other method) 4. You can define the size of the arch in plan view (you have to manipulate the size of the arch in elevation view with the other method) 5. You can define the height and width of flat soffit above the posts (I don't know how you do this with the other method) 6. If you want to change the width, height or type of arch... a few seconds with the method I outlined in video (with the other method..... several minutes) Advantages of the other method over the method I defined...... can not think of one.

Yep, that is what I do, and to be clearer, the line weights are controlled by layers in the layer set and NOT BY EDGE LINE DEFAULTS AND PATTERN LINE DEFAULTS..... that may be what JC is missing.

I do not use Joe's method, here is mine, I assume they both work to some degree, I like my method more. http://youtu.be/b-0_Z0M0rhQ

...............

I was wondering if someone would say this. I agree that the line at edge of opening goes past edge of opening about an inch, however, there are not the perpendicular lines that are in the OP's original post. Would you agree with this KT?

I don't know what the poop was all about. Labels controlled by layer. Here is a vid that demonstrates that. Maybe I am missing something, but bottom line I was able to control the door label size by the layer which is what Perry was saying from day 1. Ron, if I missed something, please let me know, I always am interested in what I do not know. http://youtu.be/WW-ncqZoHL0

It looks like TJ doesn't it? These homes are in Point Loma, this home sold for 640,000 back in 2008, albiet at the top of the market. But I bet they will still sell for that much. Another explanation is if you look closely, you will definitely see some distortions. Adam, I do not know if you can access Apple Maps from a PC...... it is an Apple App.

Holy Kamoly, thanks Kirk, this is awesome!

Wow, just found out there is a 30' elevation change from the front of my lot to the rear..... but I really could not be sure because I could not zoom in far enough to locate elevation point locations accurately. Do you think there is a way to zoom in very close to a particular site?

Get the f out of here. If I could figure out how to use this thing..... thanks Kirk...... don't have time to play with it much now, but it looks kind of neat. I am not sure how accurate it is for a specific site, but it looks like I can get some general elevations. I tried zooming in to my particular parcel, and it seems as if there is a limit to how far I can zoom in. I could not zoom in too far. I am sure there is even more stuff that I don't know about, must look into this further, thanks again.

I have a feeling KT knows what he is talking about.

So I have a job to go out and measure. I need to do an as built. The more info up front the better. Been using google maps to get overheads, (I think they changed some things), so I thought I would try Apple maps, did this awhile ago and was not pleased, thought I would check it out again. Take a look at these pics. Amazing (don't you hate that word by now?), anyway, it really is incredible the level of detail I can see. I can almost draw this house without going out there. It looks like a bomb hit the house, but i think that is really a bit of a distortion, but it isn't too bad. Not perfect but getting closer. Now all I need is some topo lines.

I don't get them, I wonder what the difference is. One is a screen shot of my CAD DETAIL FROM VIEW and the other is on export CAD FROM VIEW and then reimported to a plan file.

Fred, right or wrong, I get your post. GOOD programmers are hard to find. Good designers are hard to find, thus you get what you pay for. I get it. Therefore to get back to Nick's initial question, a more talented programmer may speed up the program. I do not mean to denigrate the CA programmers, just stating what I think Fred is saying. Please correct me if I am wrong, BTW, I think this program is wonderful, CA had done a super job in the last7 years, This program is light years ahead of where it was on 2005.

That is funny P. It's the silly part of the day.

I have been as guilty as the rest of you, but if you guys don't post a simple plan, it sure makes helping you solve your issue that much more difficult. Please post a plan guys