dshall

Please JC, post a simple plan that demonstrates the problem.

Post no. 31, yep, that is what I thought, so why is it not working for Ron? Because he is using a macro? Why is he using a macro? I think I use some macros and the layer display options works for me.

26 posts and not an answer, I just don't get it. Can we beat this to death some more? Here is the question...... how do we all come to a conclusion that we can all understand and agree on....... it's a rhetorical question...... I wonder how many more posts we can squeeze into this thread before we come up with an answer.

I'm not sure if I buy this. I think what you are saying is that Revit runs faster because it costs more because it has more efficient programming. You are saying that the Revit Programmers are better than the CA programmers. I hope this is not the case. ( I am assuming you are taking our own personal hardware out of the equation.) I don't buy the fact that because the program costs more it is faster due to more efficient programming (maybe I am wrong). It costs more because it has more features, I get that, but efficient programming should cost the same. To restate what I am assuming.... the CA programmers are as good as the Revit programmers. Which brings us back to what Nick asks, why is the Revit program faster than the CA program...... if it is. This is a great question Nick, why is a big Revit file faster that a big CA file. Sorry, I don't have the answer but it would be great if someone could weigh in on this. Bottom line, we users should never have to wait for CA to carry out an operation, CA should be quicker than we are. Gosh Nick, I am curious as to what the answer is. Do you think Perry is correct when he implies that a Revit file is quicker than a CA file because the program costs more?

Ron, post a small plan with 3 doors and 3 windows so I can take a look at it. I have my schedules west up and they work fine, but it is one of those things that if I sneeze, the entire system make screw up. But I would like to take a look at what you have so I can figure it out, thanks.

I don't know how anybody can find this crap, but somehow I did.....

I think I did it for Guy, "the Norwegian"...... I was killing time before I started working on a job that I did not want to do.

I just did a vid on this in the last week, go to my youtube channel and you should be able to find it,=. channel is....... dshall... i think, see my signature

No, I don't think so. The principal is the same as for deck post footings. The posts and footings for a deck follow the slope of the grade, (no room def under deck), therefore the footings under the floor assembly are acting as if it is a deck and not an under floor room area. since you have selected a foundation wall as NO ROOM DEF.

Aha, but it the land is sloped, the elevation at top of footings........ergo bottom of posts varies..... therefore, to get these auto, make sure that one of your exterior foundation walls are temporarily defined as NO ROOM DEFINITION, that way you will get top of footings 6" above grade and therefore the bottom of posts will be 6" above grade. This default should be changed to 8" to reflect the new code..... but..... but I think Perry knows this, but he kept it simple.

Maybe dumb question, never used client view, can my client change stucco color with CLIENT VIEWER ?

I think Mike is confusing things. I barely understand what Graehme is saying, I am not sure what DJP is agreeing to, Perry spelled it out, easy peasy. If the other guys have a better method than what Perry said, I am all ears. Of course as a newbie, the OP probably does not understand how to implement what Perry is talking about, lucky for the OP there are many videos out there detailing the process....... I think CA did a vid on this and....... yep, I am sure I did one somewhere. The OP should do a search and he will find much clearer explanation and probably a video fully explaining the process since this subject has been discussed many times.

lol, who let mumbles in?

I concur, looks neat but I am not sure the value.

Listen to the P. man, his method is the best recognize method.

I really do not want to assume the role of the "spelling police", but I believe our friend Joe Carrick should review his spelling before he makes any further posts. This is an egregious breach of spelling decorum on my golfing buddies behalf. With any luck, we will not have to revisit this issue in the near future. Thank you, thank you very much.

no problem

I gotta say, Alan is soooo funny

Here is part 2 http://youtu.be/UcChEdpn0_M part 3 http://youtu.be/s8DFgv-XHRY take your chances with these vids.

Maybe my bad, I will work with the one you just posted.

That's what I keep telling Lynn...... but she does agree ...... would you mind speaking to her?

Come on Bud, post the plan file, I don't need pdf's, post the most recent plan.

I could not find it so I did it again, thanks P. http://youtu.be/h7CeXmz7N3g

I think he is, he has been around a long time and I think I saw recently that he is selling his license.

Saran Wrap, post that plan and I will work with it. The previous plan you posted is a little different, it includes a deck. So post the new plan and I will show you what you do not understand.