Grimesgang

Did you run the "Validate File Integrity" option?

By "audit trail", I assume you mean the audit report. While I got 38 hits out of 2577 people, most were too many kids, death after 100, and death after burial. No audit citation referred to the questionable line in any way. The notes all referred to different lines, including some that have printed the descendant box chart. I also ran a VFI, Optimized, and reindexed. No help. I searched for duplicates and merge candidates. While I see I have some more cleanup work to do, none of the report items touched on my problem line in any way. BTW, the report works in reverse (ancestor box chart), even up to ten generations, so I would think that all relationships are OK. Also, though this probably doesn't matter, the Project Explorer view has no problem with same information structure. It shows all the descendants in the right places. I am mystified. Then again, with TMG it doesn't take much to do that to me.

Further observations based on your questions: L/R vs T/B does not matter US vs UK lines does not matter The chart works in the sample project NOTE: The chart I was trying for was seven generations of my direct line. I pared it down to five generations and the chart worked. When I tried to put in the sixth generation, the chart froze as before. However, it does not seem to be a number of generations issue. I chose a different line (paternal grandmother rather than paternal grandfather), and it successfully printed eight generations, including two people with twelve children each. It went through the progress bar several times rather slowly on the 8-gen print, but it made it. Therefore it seems to a dataset issue with my great-great grandfather Grimes. There is nothing special about him or his father chart-wise, and the number of people is less than the 8-gen Shaw test I did.

This is probably embarrassingly simple. I am doing a Descendant Indented Narrative. One of the tags is Occupation. In the memo for the tag, I put in the word "farmer". When it prints out, I seem to lose the memo, because I get: "Henry Grimes was a ." I haven't gotten too fancy yet, so I'm still using the default sentences. It isn't just Henry, because his son is a blank, also. What am I missing?

*Ahem* I was just going to reply saying that I had [M} in the sentence, and then I took a fresh look at the sentence I have: [P] <was|and [PO] were>< a|[M]> < in [L]> Now I realize my problem. the second singular/plural selection doesn't have [M] on both sides of the statement. I KNEW it was something easy. BTW, I've never used UFT.

There is no place in the US Standard Place Name layout for township, or any other political subdivision, that is used in the US Census. How do people handle this? Obviously, I'm new to TMG. I used Family Matters (MS Access-based) before, and lots of things that were easy then seem to be harder now. Trying to get over the learning curve is daunting.

I wondered about the custom Place styles, but since it seems like the only place they change the field is in the tag where you're filling it out, I'm not sure I see the use for the alternate styles yet. As you said, you use the "Detail" field. Well, Township is a detail, isn't it? I thought the description for alternate styles said that it didn't change things in reports. I would think that is exactly where the alternate style concept would be most important. For the moment I've even experimented with putting the township in the postal code field and the page number in the phone field. However, I may be OK with a memo for at least some of that. Pre-TMG, I was used to having all my information on one page (the family group sheet), including citations and details. TMG splits this info up into lots of separate places. Since at least five of my families are from the same rural county in Ohio from 1830 well into the 1900s, I was always able to see family movement and connections very easily because the township and page was on the census tag in the main family group sheet. TMG seems to hide some of those details, unless I'm not doing it right yet. However, every day I learn more about this rascal. I can't even imagine trying to create the code for this program; the flexibility is mind-boggling.