SHCanada2

if I am reading this correctly, the text you have above the line is "Floor Plan - Main Level", and this a unique SPV? If so, the only downside with this is you need different SPVs for each level (basement, main, second, third) and type (electrical for instance). so you would potentially need 8 SPVs, where, you likely only need 2 unique ones (other than the floor differences). The other way to do it, is to have set layout boxes on layout template with named floors, and then link the layout box with the SPV and specific floor. if you do not need the floor you delete the layout page and/or layout box(which is the tradeoff) Not to say one is "better" than the other, they both have tradeoffs In my case, I'm lazy and normally only have one floor plan or elevation per sheet, so the top text is just the layout page title. I also do this one per page thing to try and fill the page so if they decide to print on smaller paper, they can still see everything this yields

out of curiosity, are you actually pricing dimensional lumber by the foot. An 8' 2x6 here is $7, and a 10' is $11, or 88c/ft and $1.10/ft respectively

I ran a little test and it appears this may work by using the user library in a specific sequence.. If you have no schedule on your plan, place a note from the user library on the plan, then place a schedule for the note on the plan. it shows up with 1, then add another library note to the plan, it shows up as 2, .... The above doesnt work if you place the schedule after the dropping all the notes on. If you do that, the numbered order appears to be based on the original numbered order when I saved to the user library. i.e. I created 3 notes: text1,text2,text3 and added them to my library. On a new plan, If I put say text3 on the plan then text2, and then a schedule, text2 will be "1", and text3 will be "2". But if I put text3 down, then a schedule, text3 will show as 1, and then if I put text2 down, it shows as 2, and then I put text1 down, it shows as 3 edit: also works if you put an empty schedule down first, then add the notes

Couldnt you just add your notes to the user library, and then drag them onto your plan as needed? only ones actually on the plan would then only show in the schedule

Not that I know of. I will select the rooms in the second structure and set their heights. Roofs, if I remember correctly needed to be adjusted as well for height off plate..

I demonstrated this last year in a post. CA will, without telling you, change the material on an exterior wall under certain conditions. It occured for me when there was an exterior indent in a wall (like 2' in by 3' wide), and the if you go to changes this indent to something else, it flips the material on one of the walls It was repeatable. And I logged it @glennw suggested "But if Chief is reversing your walls, you may want to look at the Auto Reverse Wall Layers setting." From what I can tell that setting does not always work correctly. It may be worth a try to turn it off.

yes, I've just not had the motivation yet to move to that

I found the problem, or perhaps, weird behaviour. If the camera is actually open when I print the layout to pdf, it prints correctly. If the camera is not open, it gets the washed out look it does happen if I reduce the sun as well, just much less obvious, I reduced the sun from 2500 to 500, much better

yes

the irony is if I print the image from the plan file it prints it correctly:

I'm not sure I understand. If the camera is how I like it, then I need to reduce the sunlight so it is darker than I would like, so that when it prints to pdf, it is brighter than the camera? This would seem to be a painful process

electrical? suite in basement?

not sure how everyone else does it, but I generally do not use the working layer set. I have my foundation SPV set up, so that any text created on it, is put on a layer Text, Foundation. If you are just using the working plan SPV, and want to accomplish the same thing, you have to change the annotation set (Active default). I find just using the SPVs simpler The only reason I use the working layer set to to see what is all on the plan, because the "All on set" is too much

I dont think most people use RTRT cameras on layouts, but if there someone that does, or if someone knows how to " fix" this it would be appreciated. The CA save to PDF is creating a washout look compared to what I see in camera or the camera on layout, for cameras with bright sunlight. It can be seen most in the camera on the lower right: Layout: PDF (600DPI @24x36) to scale camera: thanks

I assume though that you also want to make sure the symbol for the gas is on the plan. i.e. if you turn the layer on, you do not just want (1) Fireplace to show up in the text box, but you also want to make sure the symbol is at least on the plan. Otherwise people will turn on the layer and forget to position the gas outlet. How is that ensured in Autocadd? Or is this only a problem on existing plans where all of the gas outlets are already on the plan and you are just toggling the layer to toggle the option for the customer?

Not sure how you setup that one wall with the two roofs. And the roofs and/or ceiling planes are not centered (assuming the windows are): If you lowered the right roof that might solve one problem, but that would be a purely manual fix you may want to post the plan

i try and make it work first by putting a terrain region at the front (all the way across the terrain(actually beyond the terrain on both sides), and then one at back ( 6 ft lower), all the way across the property. If the drop like Gene has is the only thing you need, then it works. Where it doesn't work is where corners of the property are different elevations, or if you have wing walls with a lower elevation region between them, or different elevation points(as opposed to just two regions) CA has a good video of it

This is how I have them. But I would concur with Rene. although the new callout linking feature was very good, there is still, IMHO, an improvement which could be done around efficient CAD detail management. And if X16 ends up with a certain way being better, I would hate to spend a bunch of time on a way which does not use any new capabilities that may come

I just put them in my library...always there...can easily duplicate..can easily edit

I think I would go another direction, similar to what rene does for details. He essentially sets all the variables graphically in a CAD detail. You could then use that in text boxes or report on them as you see fit. It has the advantage of keeping everything in one place, and avoiding yet more layers

I tried it on your plan. changed the reach and choose the right side. but it does have an errant "ridge line" but you can delete it. deleted:

I did this once. If I remember correctly, I set the storey pole to the other side of the building I wanted, so if there were two buildings and you wanted the left building, set the story pole to be on the left. I dont remember if the "highest ridge" worked or if I set that manually. And I probably had to set the reach

I have to manually move them to look like this

here too

I will say on more than one occasion Eric has created videos of how to fix my plan using my plan, but more importantly to me is the explanation he puts into them on why it's done a certain way. Once I know the why I can apply that to other problems