Aha!   The work file actually has multiple records for each check corresponding to the different stubs.  For example one check might have a record for Stub 1 and Stub 2.  There is a field in the work file called Stub No.

Hi Tom, PR Checks were completely redesigned with the PR 2018 release.

• Remove all sub reports
• Improve performance
• General cleanup and simplification.  

Glad to hear you like the redesign.

Thx John Nichols

Sage

The PR check for one of our clients is Stub/Check, but the Stub is twice the height.  In other words, the stub is 2/3 and the check is 1/3 of the 8.5 x 11 form.  How will we customize the new form to match their format?

You shouldn't need to customize it.  You can use the Stub, Check option and set the number of lines per stub to match your form.  I tried it with 41 lines and the check printed at the bottom of the page for each employee.

Well I'll be darned.  Cool!  Thanks tmurphy.

I've run into an issue with the new layout - many of our clients print on blank check stock using the Stub/Check/Stub arrangement and has the large stub on top (the reverse of the standard form layout)..  They use the same check stock for both AP & PR checks.  I haven't found a way to make the new form layout work, as I can't adjust the placement of the bottom stub.  In other words, if I adjust the # of stub lines to get the top stub and check face to fit, the bottom stub prints in the check face section.  Is there a way to address this issue?

Not sure if there is a more elegant way,  but I expand the check section to make it longer and push the second stub down.

When I do that, the top of the 2nd stub is in the correct position, but it pushes Group Footer 2 onto a 2nd page.  Have you gotten this arrangement to work (large stub on top)?

I've never seen large stub on top checks.  That would definitely nullify my solution.

I have another thought, but I need to check it out.  Give me a few minutes to verify.  I'm doing a payroll now and I should be able to confirm (or not) something I've noticed in the past but not fully explored about the check design.

OK.  I think this will work but I haven't officially tested it.

If you look at the PR_CheckPrintWork there is a field called Stubno.  The values in it are 1,2 and 3.  I assume that 1 is Stub #1,  2 is the check and 3 is stub #2 in a stub check stub format.

yyyyyyyyyyyyyh8uuuuuuuuuuu  <== Cat on keyboard.  LOL.

Insert a group footer #2a that is blank as a spacer.  In your case suppress it when Stubno is 2 and 3.

That should give you extra spacing in the top stub, but not in the bottom or the check.  You may have to experiment to get the right height.

Let me know how it turns out.

OK.  I think this will work but I haven't officially tested it.

If you look at the PR_CheckPrintWork there is a field called Stubno.  The values in it are 1,2 and 3.  I assume that 1 is Stub #1,  2 is the check and 3 is stub #2 in a stub check stub format.

yyyyyyyyyyyyyh8uuuuuuuuuuu  <== Cat on keyboard.  LOL.

Insert a group footer #2a that is blank as a spacer.  In your case suppress it when Stubno is 2 and 3.

That should give you extra spacing in the top stub, but not in the bottom or the check.  You may have to experiment to get the right height.

Let me know how it turns out.

Thanks Tom.  I'll be away from this for a week, but I'll let you know.

No luck.  I'm going to open a case.  This is an issue that affects multiple of our clients.