[Vince]

Well, that takes me back @Doug!

Nothing on such a large scale as the projects that you are working on, but we used to have a similar thing when we made oak kitchens, sideboards, etc..

But back then all our cutting lists were worked out on a scrap of paper – there certainly wasn’t a computer in the workshop! 🤣

[Vince]

Great video @Doug!

Some bits in there that I haven’t used before that’s for sure!

I look forward to seeing your next video.

[Vince]

@David Cutler – 21 is working okay for me now.

[Vince]

Great presentation @Doug and thanks for the shout out!

As you said, we are all getting ideas and learning from each other.

I’ll certainly being logging back into your studio project as I want to see if I can use a couple of those power query details in some of what I do!

[Vince]

Very useful especially when the base drawing seems to have a layer for every single drawn line!

[Vince]

Create the markup to the required size and then put a text box in it with just a “1” in the box. Then group together and save to your toolbox. Finally, create a sequence from there?

[Vince]

You can fix this in custom line styles and you can probably make a much better markup by including some text as well.

Below is a line style I created for measuring the masonry in foundations: –

[Vince]

I have that all working now using the filename without the prefix. What is throwing me is the useless naming convention on the set of drawings that I have been trying this with – the revision details are in the middle of the file name e.g. “150 – Garages-D2-Single SGB.pdf”.

The “D2” is the revision number!

So, my issue now is that when I slip in the latest revision which is “D5” the drawing title remains as the original set which can be rather confusing if you are expecting to see “D5” somewhere.

The naming conventions here in the UK have a long long way to go before this becomes the simple process that it should be.

[Vince]

Thanks Bob – I will give that a go.

[Vince]

As Doug says – ask questions and lots of them.

You’ll find that we all use Revu is slightly different ways for our workflows and many of the techniques are not something that are taken directly from the Bluebeam ‘handbook’.

There may also be several different ways in which you can achieve your goals so be prepared to continually update what you create in Revu.

[Vince]

Let’s hope this update doesn’t take as long as the one which corrected the disappearing layer issue!

[Vince]

@David – I was looking for a way to merge the existing layers into smaller groups e.g. once of the drawings I have has about a dozen layers for each of these boundary treatments, pumping station compound, etc..

Unfortunately, I couldn’t seem to get this to work.

Does anyone else know if this is possible?

[Vince]

Once the markups are grouped then the text in the comments column doesn’t export unless everything is ungrouped again.

[Vince]

As an extra note on this, if you set up a line style like shown in my picture you can get it to work easily in different scaled drawings e.g. the above was set up to work on a 1:50 scale drawing using a line thickness of 3.

If you are working on a 1:100 or 1:200 drawing all you need to do is reduce the thickness to say 1.50.

So, just adjust the line thicknesses of your tools in the actual toolboxes before you start marking up and that’s it.

[Vince]

That’s a very big ‘if’ if you are here in the UK!