bc

Mat, Yes. I have muddled through this as well and my workaround is to simply SELECT ALL and then FIT TO OBJECTS and if you don't have too many 2D objects spread out (or stack layers is on) it does a reasonable job of fitting to your window. I have long wished for a fit view to window command or default option and even wishlisted the issue but there was not much response so maybe there is an easier way out. Probably not what you were asking for......

I selected the update option and only the two viewports on the active layer were updated. I thought since I had all VP's selected, they woud all update but not so.

I was thinking I could open the Viewports tab of the Organization Palette, select all viewports, click on edit and select update in the properties dialog (which says the correct number of viewports selected) and it would update all the viewports in one command. I tried and it didn't work. Am I doing something wrong or can you just not get there from here?

Conventions=language Language is ever evolving as are construction practices and materials. The current batt SSSSS convention is fine as would be a fill or whatever as long as it communicates well. I personally find the SSSSSS convention a bit of graphic clutter. My contractors (certainly no smarter than major contractors) have no problem reading the SSS or a fill. I'm not talking paradigm shift here...or a "new set of conventions".....rather making the drawing read a bit better. If a contractor can't be expected or asked to "read" the drawings otherwise, then the SSSS convention must be used....which is fine. I would submit that they COULD read alternatives if presented well and that your office simply wishes to remain conventional...which is fine. I even use the SSSSS on occasion but that's the deviant in me...... This harkens back to an earlier thread, I believe, which ended with agreement that the options should be there. So the wavy fill should be available easily, in my view, especially if NNA is playing to the USA market as much as some would have us believe.

I agree with Mike. The difference lies with that which is clean and "readable" at whatever scale the drawing is. On my last job I did use a solid shade for the insulation on a smaller scale wall section and it looked great. I suppose it would be just as well for larger scale (with less clutter) and since we redundantly callout anyway.......... Bradley

To conclude this and simplify: copied objects are pasted in to a layer with the same xyz coordinates that they had in the layer (file) they were copied from. I mistakenly assumed they were pasted to the bottom of the layer when passted into a separate document. Silly me.....have I got it right now? It seems this is true with my experiments.

I was just kidding around. Katie, I didn't expect anyone would take my comments seriously.

Actually Katie, I don't know. If you're old enough to remember 45's......hmmm. But the aging hippie in me seems to remember the sequence as: 78's>45's>LP's/Reel-to-reel>4 Track tapes>8 Track tapes>cassettes>CD's>iPods. The funny part about it is I never knew the Commadore, the floppy's or the cartridge or anything over 4 yrs old.

Since I found the functionality handy, I have reinstalled the Align Layer Views command in my custom 12.5.2 workspace and I have a couple of questions regarding this tactic. 1. Is this asking for trouble? 2. Was the align layers command relegated to legacy because programmers felt that stack layers made align layers obsolete? 3. Additionally, do any of these view aspects affect the pasting of copied objects from one file layer to a different layer in a different file. More specifically, if I copy an object that is 10 ft. above the ground plane on one layer in File A will it be pasted 10 ft above the ground plane on a different layer in File B when the layer pasted to is at a different height than the layer copied from? I always thought that such copy>pasting placed the object at the same height above the bottom of the pasted layer...regardless of where the ground plane lies. Sorry for the basic question but it's late in the day for me and I'm having difficulty with my model set up while trying to transfer components of one file to another. Maybe I have a corrupt file or layer setup issues. Thanks.

Well......it IS the 13th! I hope I'm still laughing after everyone discovers the new bugs and PIO limitations. Countdown to new bugs and PIO limitations! Seriously it sounds promising and I am sure I will order mine eventually.

BY PETRI: "As an example: in my last projects in Australia, I printed all required drawing sets in colour. Roses were red, violets were blue. Batt insulation was light yellow, rigid insulation darker. Plasterboard was gray, MDF was brown. And so on. In short, I completely ignored standards and conventions - and both contractors and blokes were as happy as Larry and Bob was my uncle. C'mon! Chomp a cigar and be a revolucionary! " There is somethng to this, Christiaan. The aging counterrevolutionary in me agrees. If the drawings read well and communicate well who cares? I realize that part of communicating well is based on conventions/standards but with a few callouts....... and besides, the guys reading these are not stupid. So let 'er rip!

I am in the US and I clicked on it, filled in the info and minutes later confirmed with the opt-in email process and voila!..........nothing. Guess I have to wait until the 13th.

Well thanks, Christiaan. I tell you what. Let's trade! Let's have the UK adopt the US stair convention and, in return, the US could go metric!!! Hmmmm. Not bloody likely, I'm afraid........what's it been now? 40 yrs?

For me, the biggest functionality issue is that when traveling without a full keyboard, one no longer has the convenience of the numerical keypad. I know it lurks below the letters but it's a pain.

Yes I merely borrowed Christiaan's graphic. If there were no stairs below I would tend to break the stair within the first run up and the remainder dashed so I could better show what might be below it on the floorplan but that is a different circumstance. Given your single up convention, I would prefer your method of dashing the upper portion. This issue was explained to me way back in 1969 when I was told the floor plan was like a horizontal section through the building about 4 ft above the floor and looking down. Therefore one would actually see stairs going both up and down from that floor so those would be solid lines and hence that presentation...the dashed line being reserved for elements not seen: beyond or in front of the section. I suppose that if the AIA decided to change to your method for the convention or if it somehow trended to that, I would be right on board. Hmmm, perhaps they already have and I am playing the game by the old rules.....

Quote Christiaan, "Well, think about a mid-level. You can go both up and down from the floor plan you're looking at. If you took this U.S. way of looking at it to its logical end you would draw both up and down arrows on a mid-level stair. Or is that what you're saying you do (per flight)?" Yes exactly. Here's a comparison (to borrow from your stair graphic from another post). I hope my JPGS are attached correctly. I think the US method is graphically more tedius but obviously what I'm use to and perhaps "six of one, half a dozen of another". As alluded to above, I feel the US method is based on the way we have come to orient ourselves from the floorplan we're drawing on or looking at. It answers the question: what are the stairs doing from this floorplan? In the US we would answer that the stairs go up on this side and down on that side and in the UK you might say the stairs are going up on this side and coming up from below on this side. Correct? If so the UK orientation baffles me a bit but whatever. It's easy to agree that it should be optional...perhaps even to the point of amazement that it isn't that way from the git-go.

jan15, You seem to ignore your own warning......we can only move on and hope for the best from all or, otherwise, another timely Katie intervention.

Christiaan, It is the convention in the US to indicate stair direction per flight from the floor plan drawn. I probably don't understand your definition of multi-story. Brits may have use for other means and certainly having only one arrow without words is simpler yet that is not how it is done here so I second the notion of it being optional which seems to be the point of agreement here. Not having this type of simple option is a big sore point for VW PIO's in general.

Boy do I second that.

That's about as likely as NNA publishing a list of known bugs.

For me, when I get this kind of screwy behavior, I try repairing permissions via the install disc. Sometimes that does it. Since it is happening to several computers at once, there may be a file corruption that is inducing the problem? You might seek help from tech support.

I should add that if you upgrade to 12.5.2 you may have to repeat the process. I just upgraded and this thread made me realize the string was overwritten. Should you have trouble, I can add a bit to Robert's instructions. Good luck

I think it just has to be dealt with as I had to. See the following thread: http://techboard.nemetschek.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=4&Number=75867&Searchpage=2&Main=16918&Words=bc&topic=0&Search=true#Post75867

Doh! That's exactly it. Here I was so busy thinking about it I didn't just try it. Thanks Pete.

I wish there was a simpler way to move the walkthrough vertically short distances. We can move forward or backward with short precision but not up or down. Whenever I hit the lower or raise ground plane modes of the tool it jumps great distances. Using the viewer up or down modes can rotate the viewpoint such that one can dive head first into the floor but this is many steps to accomplish. I just wish we could, say, option click drag the walkthrough curser and the viewer moves up and down in a smooth manner (like on an elevator) as can be done with the tool in forward or backward modes. So if I just want to lower the view about 12-18 inches I simply option-click and drag down. One would think if the tool can move vertically 12 ft at a jump it could move 12 inches in a slightly different mode. Or am I missing some functionality? Is there some distance preference for the move ground plane modes?