P Retondo

If it were possible, the search function on the board could stand some improvement. 1) It's better for the search to return whole threads, not multiple posts from a single thread - this system bloats the search results and makes it harder to find things. The results could expand to show the individual posts that mention the search term, but bascially something analogous to the summary display of the current forums would be best. 2) Search on multiple terms with boolean operators.

Thanks for the tip, Ray. Restoring my custom workspace backup fixed things. I didn't think the preference was there, but it worked!

Thanks, Peter - clever idea, but I'm already at maximum resolution and lowering it didn't expose the bottom edge of the box. There must be a preference setting for this somewhere! I've tried the application settings .xml files, but can't find anything.

After a crash, all my palettes were gone from the screen except for the OIP, which occupied the entire screen after rebooting. I finally realized what that big gray window was, closed it down, and rebuilt the palette scheme. But now my OIP can't be resized from the bottom. In other words, it extends down below the VW window and is basically "bottomless." Has anyone had experience correcting this problem?

True!

Mike, I agree. It took advice, I think it was from you, for me to find where to edit the Viewport name.

Boris, it's hard to say whether there is a setting you have missed since we have no idea what settings you are using! Be assured that this tool works. Travis, it is not necessary to put the roof object on a different layer; however, it may be good practice. What often happens is that, since the command fits the walls to any horizontal object on the nominated layer, you can get weird results sometimes unless you put the horizontal object or objects on a layer all by themselves.

Does it take too much time to click the "Data" tab to see the name of the Viewport?

It's faster to do the methods I outlined instead of exporting and importing a .dwg. Otherwise, your workaround is fine (and creative!).

Without getting into any questions of why you want to do this or what you are actually trying to accomplish, just taking at face value that you want to end up with 2d line versions of what you are seeing on screen: You can select the links and convert to lines (Modify->Convert copy to lines). This will not capture any 2d elements, only 3d objects such as walls and roofs. If you want to capture 2d elements as well, work with a viewport (i.e., create a viewport from the layer that contains your links). If you convert a copy of the viewport to lines, it will capture the 2d elements. If your viewport is at a scale different from the Sheet Layer scale (it usually is), you'll have to scale up the resulting group of lines by the inverse of the Viewport scale.

Mike, thanks, and thanks to mike m oz as well, for pointing out the usefulness of the Ceiling Grid tool. It works the way we wish the hatch attribute would work.

Islandmon, your question is a significant one. At what point does viewport customization become a bureaucratic nightmare? We already have major control over what a viewport can do - perhaps what Christiaan would like should be done by more "traditional" VW methods? Is that a fair inference from your question? Christiaan and link, maybe you could offer us an example of a situation where you would want a hatch to appear in a viewport differently from the way it appears in a design layer.

I assume you are talking about assigning the hatch as a fill via the Attributes Palette. In that case, the hatch is applied in such a way that it aligns with a fixed point in space - so that if you move the object, the alignment of the hatch pattern to that object can change, while the hatch pattern itself remains stationary. It's as though there is a hatch pattern that fills the background of the drawing, and the object is a window looking out onto that endless hatch field. How do you set the "origin" of the hatch pattern applied in this way (the original question in this thread)? I'm not aware that can be done without a tedious process of editing all the levels in the hatch.

May be an Architect package item: Tool sets->Dims/Notes->Date Stamp

Depending on what version you have, this could be the corrupted workspace problem. If you have a custom workspace, move it to your desktop, deleting it from your workspace folder, and then try to boot the program. If it now boots, you know that was your problem.

Currently if we use the hatch command, as opposed to using the Attributes palette to apply the hatch, we can control the "origin" by where we click in the object to be filled. The method I often use is to apply the hatch at a particular point, note how I'd rather apply it by drawing a rectangle, and offset my click point by that distance. It would be great if we could have the ability to control the insertion point of hatches applied by Attribute Palette. Specifically, if there were "offset" fields for a hatch, and if those fields could input numbers based on a vector (e.g., two clicks at the corners of my rectangle), we would have convenient control over how hatches are applied.

If you use the hatch command, as opposed to using the Attributes palette to apply the hatch, you can control the "origin" by where you click in the object to be filled. Just apply the hatch at a particular point, note how you'd rather apply it by drawing a rectangle, and offset your click point by that distance. By the way, it would be great if we had the ability to control the insertion point of hatches applied by Attribute Palette. Specifically, if there were "offset" fields for a hatch, and if those fields could input numbers based on a vector (e.g., two clicks at the corners of my rectangle), we would have convenient control over how hatches are applied.

Okay, get it - sounds good!

Christiaan, not quite sure how this would work . . .

Katie, I believe the request is for something that would automatically create the graphics shown on the right in this image of two walls of different thickness: It's pretty easy to add a line or two to do this, so I personally don't feel a great urgency about it. More important, perhaps, would be to get outer cavities to wrap around the ends of walls, and, in this case, to wrap through the change in thickness:

Katie, thanks!

Don, for example, if I have 1/2" ply and 7/8" stucco, I often create a 1 3/8" outer cavity with a stucco texture for rendering. VW will snap to the line between outer and inner cavities for dimensioning to face of stud.

This would be very helpful. By the way, if you carefully place a locus at the apparent intersection of the axes, it will almost always appear at (0,0), and then you can snap to that.

It would be great to be able to define the rotation of a texture assigned to a class. This is particularly crucial when using PIO objects that can take their textures only from a part class assignment.

JC, agree with 1 and 4, although 1 is already possible to work around. Regarding 3, you can align walls when changing the thickness if you use the wall type capability, and change the type in the OIP (not sure if this works in version 11). I would disagree with the idea of 2 - you can't ask the program to change the mathematical description of a CAD entity based on an appearance factor! Well, you could ask for that, but the implementation would create a disaster!