jKaufmann

Let me second Bob's sentiment. I learned a lot from both answers, both in solutions and approaches. Thanks.

Also, I should have mentioned: artifacts -- wall layers extending up to the roofline -- remain, even when the Room Divider is used. This suggest that those artifacts may be related to the wall "snap" effect, even when there is no auto-connection effect.

Thanks for your reply. The walls in question are those at the S and W corners of the file "Home_1978.plan". I tried building a Room Divider. As you said, it inhibits the auto-magical connection, but still does not allow unconstrained freedom of wall placement; there is still some kind of "snap" effect, even with all snaps turned off.

That is such a good point. I must admit it crossed my mind while struggling to make HD stop "helping" -- but I assumed there must be a way, because it seemed like the unwanted behavior was intended to serve some kind of design purpose, and so should be possible to turn off, like a snap. The other reason for continuing to beat on this was that I realized there was another basic point I did not understand, which I think is related to all of the unwanted "help": How HD will take one or more layers of a wall and extend them upward without the other layers, over all or part of the wall's span. I have seen this take two forms -- either up to the roofline, or even above the roofline -- for which I offer examples: Above the roofline: The 2nd-floor front-and-back cantilever walls are faced in cedar shake shingles. To define them, I began with the library's "Staggered Cedar Shake", which defaulted to a 1/2" thick layer. That presented OK, but I decided to make the dimension closer to what it really is: 1-1/2", not 1/2". With that change, that layer went through the roof (literally), but only on the front (SW) wall, not the back (NW) wall -- even though the roof is defined the same way for each wall. I experimented with how thick I could make that layer with evoking that weird behavior, and found that if I kept it to 3/4" or less, the artifact went away, so I left it at 3/4" and moved on -- even though I really wanted to know what caused the weird behavior. I feel like every time I make that compromise, I miss understanding something important. Up to the roofline: I attached two plans to this thread, "Home-1970" (as originally built) and "Home 1978" (an addition of attached garage + cantilevered family room + deck, with full basement underneath). The differences at this point are minimal: If you look at the S and W corners of the plan, you can see two short walls where I begin to draw the walls of the 1978 addition, and immediately ran into trouble. On the W corner I finessed the problem by breaking the wall into two parts, one part with the outer (shake shingle) surface layer, one part (which was attached to the brick exterior surface of the original house) without that shingle layer. [But still there is an artifact up to the roofline; I just don't know what ir represents.] On the S corner, where the wall has a brick, rather than shingle, surface, I tried to use the same trick -- which is why you see that little piece of a wall in place, waiting for the more substantial piece to be attached to it. But when I try to attach the wall piece with the brick layer, HD keeps wanting to connect the framing layers of those two wall segments with the framing layer of the original house SE wall. And the reason I think that this auto-connection feature is related to the extension of the wall layers upward to the roofline is that whether or not I allow the auto-connection changes the artifacts (wall layers) that extend upward to the roofline. I'm sorry those descriptions look so complex. I just spent a couple hours trying to simplify and condense them. But they do (I think) illustrate this problem of "helpful" behavior that I would like to turn off. [Attempts to upload updates of the two plan files failed ("Error code: -200"), but I think the versions uploaded earlier today (which may be taking up space needed for the updates, but I could not find a way to delete them) will probably suffice to illustrate.] I would file a bug report (or two), but thought I should ask here first about the proper way to use HD Pro. Thanks so much for your perspective. I agree that your experience proves the value of that perspective; I'm trying to learn how to accommodate the program's logic to be productive.

Home_1970.planI've done enough searching on this problem to know you can't lock walls. And yet... there must be a way to prevent existing walls from reaching out to "grab" a new wall or constraining the sizing of an added wall. I have an as-built plan of a home built in 1970, and am trying to add on a 1978 addition (an attached garage + family room + deck) EXACTLY as built, in order to accurately represent the construction details for a 2022 addition (room over garage + modification of family room and deck). But HD simply will not permit placing walls of arbitrary size next in the vicinity of walls already in the plan, without modifying both the new wall and the pre-existing wall automatically. How can I stop that? (I have turned off all snaps, but read in the notes that turning off snaps will not prevent walls from automagically resizing and connecting. But there MUST be a way.) [This is my fourth crack at trying to do this. After the third time I decided to start over and "build" it in the same stages as happened, in the hope that I can get what is built to remain as built. But I see no way to lock what I have. Of course I can lock layers, but I have to work in those layers; it's the only way to make an addition. I cannot be the first person to have this problem...] Home_1978.plan

Yes. That's what I meant: The material only has a Fill (or Pattern or Texture) attribute in that layer of that Wall Type definition -- though clearly those attributes have a material basis. (Brick looks like brick, lumber looks like lumber, regardless where used.) Given that material basis, i thought I must have missed something about the material definitions. I guess not. Thanks for the answers.

[Sorry, i don't know why my last message posted twice.] This began with making a cantilever, faced with shake shingles, out of a brick-faced wall. In this case, the framing is continuous but the exterior changes to a different Wall Type - obtained by breaking the wall and changing from a type with brick face to a type with shingle face. Having decided that I would like different Fill colors for the materials (to highlight in plan view the continuity of the framing and discontinuity of the exterior), I realized that changing the attributes for a material in one Wall Type did not change the same material attributes in a different Wall Type. That was inconvenient (and even seemed a little odd, I must admit), so I searched the manuals, and then the site -- and, finding nothing, decided I should ask.

Thanks, but I was referring to having the attributes follow the material, not just one wall definition. For example, to have framing lumber, or brick, or a particular siding material, always appear the same way in plan view, or in 3D, etc. Framing lumber is the material most commonly used (regardless of exterior), but that principle applies to all materials: Can the attribute set {Pattern,Size,Fill} be assigned to the material definition, and through that to the wall definition, or is it necessary to define the same set of material attributes for each wall definition?

Thanks, but I was referring to having the attributes follow the material, not just one wall definition. For example, to have framing lumber, or brick, or a particular siding material, always appear the same way in plan view, or in 3D, etc. Framing lumber is the material most commonly used (regardless of exterior), but that principle applies to all materials: Can the attribute set {Pattern,Size,Fill} be assigned to the material definition, and through that to the wall definition, or is it necessary to define the same set of material attributes for each wall definition?

Can a wall material's visual attributes (Pattern, Texture, Fill) be assigned per material, rather than by each wall definition? I'm trying to find a way to make materials visually apparent consistently, regardless of the wall definition in which they are used, so that if I change a visual attribute, it changes everywhere.

First: That's it! - just a manual error: "Move" => "Selection Line". And you were right to insert the comma. Second: The reason I did not start with 'the manual does not make sense' is because I presumed the problem was with my understanding, not with the manual. [I don't think I should jettison that presumption yet. ] At the same time, I quoted from the manual to provide the context for what I was not understanding.

No, I'm sure you're not trying to be difficult, but when (after trying without the manual) I don't understand something, my habit is to RT()M until I do. I usually find that by the time I understand the explanation I have workable proficiency. I've gone through all the 3D view options to try to get a feel for what makes sense where, but on this point I just don't understand the explanation. Do you think I should call HD support to ask about what is intended by that paragraph?

Trying to understand how to use the 3D views efficiently.

For HD2020 Reference Manual, page 773 has this paragraph: But page 83 has nothing about a "Move color" (set or otherwise), and there is no other reference to "Move color" in the Reference Manual or User Guide. Now, after an hour searching external sources, I still can't imagine what that might mean. Can someone help?

First let me say what a nice thing you did, taking that time to help solve my problem (and offering more time if I could not get it worked out). The key was the Reverse Layers tool, which switches primary/secondary wall sides. And now, after playing with it, I think I understand the conceptual point of it: The user gets to define "Primary Wall Side" by whatever criteria are needed for the job. For example: need one side with drywall (primary), and the other side bare (secondary)? - just define it that way. And so I did, finally. All good now. Thank you!