dshall

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

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