Renerabbitt

draw order as in my rafters are drawn over the top of everything but my roof planes, as intended, and the macro specifying a header in my window label has no option to be drawn over the rafters. I dont want to change the window draw order and then have to change the header draw order and then change the rafter draw order to achieve this display. I feel like there is a draw order option for labels, I just can't find it

Can't find this, can't even remember if it exists, bwain dead this am

Refer to this thread, their are detailed videos and explanations on how to get this to function quite well:

A restricted search will bring you a lot of regards to this,it has to do with file authoring and ownership...if one machine is trying to author a file while another is trying to download the same file it will often times result in conflicting copies. ‘In my sig is a link to a thread where I propose some advanced techniques for cloud syncing user libraries

I typically name my wall type and remove description entirely from schedules, but thats just me

An experiment to illustrate this would be to add the column "numbers" and watch as you have 35 new rows

Schedules will display based on "like" information pulled from the column headings that you choose to include.. as in, if you add a column type "floor" you will now get new rows of wall assemblies from a first and second floor regardless of a lack or presence of any other differences between the assemblies. In your case you have multiple wall types using the description "EXISTING 2X4 STUDS @ 16"O.C., NO GYP BD." and since you only included the "description" column, CA schedules will not distinguish between different wall types until you add the column type "wall type" so the new schedule has the column type" wall type" which is why additional wall types are present. Simply add a wall type column and you will see your schedule populate

Came up as a contractor and started using CA as a hobby in version 7 It only makes sense that framing is on the fnd layer, how else would you be able to truly decipher the floor to fnd connections...is it a ledger detail, a flush GH detail, a stem wall with rims, a slab w/ curb abutting a stem wall w/ joists...that information must be graphically represented with fnd and framing on 1 sheet...I see no other way, section details only get you so far

This is exactly why I prefer using a note schedule for revisions now

wheres your dang paypal link!

Do we have this capability? Using the SAM method I have a lot of old unused custom fields that I would love to Purge or rename- can't seem to find this

javatom has the right idea I would probably insert a floor below your existing foundation level, putting the decks on level 1...looks like you have walls that aren't using default top and bottom heights, you will need to address that- I dont see any custom framing aside from your columns that couldn't be auto-built, but you could always create a "framing only" layer set and group select your framing and then use paste/hold-position to copy and paste to a floor above... but if the elevation heights are all correct, then insert a floor and split the 0 and 1st floor up in defaults and your framing should remain where it is

@DRAWZILLA @dshall @CJSpud @CharlesVolz also....editing the active camera view to have a narrow field of view can get you much closer to an orthographic projection :

@DRAWZILLA @dshall @CJSpud @CharlesVolz For the few people here that I know watched this workshop, given only a 5 minute window to touch-up of a clients perspective floor overview...notice the sun settings...an almost black sun with a measly 500 lm, and then the technique options for the PBR camera have exposure cranked to half way:

Can't remember if they have CAD or just PDF details, but they do have details : Vulcan Vent Website

My Lesson plan kindve fell apart, ha Please ask any questions though, helps me learn how to teach

lol, my godmother has spelled it wrong for 37 years everyone calls me Rabbitt for the most part- this was funny

Do my best to hit the major points and maybe truncate that time as well as share the load with Graham... I may just show final versions on exterior shots and explain the methods instead of working through it...I will work through the interior shot Graham will certainly have some worthwhile notes to add to exteriors that I am interested in, it's worth putting him on stage

Hate it

not so: "Section 12.68.020 Undergrounding utilities. It is the intent of the city to ensure that all new utility services and relocated existing utility services, are placed underground, including additions and/or tear-downs of fifty (50) percent or greater to existing buildings, excluding basements. Therefore, the following shall apply:"

I see this as interpretation, I don't see anything in this municipal code that states that it would require a new service, just that any new service must be underground if the project falls under this criteria.... meaning that if you can leave the existing service and it is suitable for your addition you will not be required to install a new service.. whats your take @Richard_Morrison ?

ok, this does not require an additional service drop, unless owner requested or you are relocating service drop, and you can do a service upgrade without triggering this requirement

also, do you require a new service? is this an ADU where the owner has requested new service? can you just install a sub-panel to satisfy the owner req's?

FYI: In areas served by existing overhead facilities, all new service drops shall be installed underground from the most convenient existing pole. and this one may help: Residential properties that are served by utilities located in rear yards on standard lots with frontage on only one public right-of-way shall not be required to underground existing overhead services. from this link: click me!

Jim, you mind first detailing the type of addition, is it detached, what is the current conditioned floor area excluding garage and what is the existing garage floor area and then what is the proposed conditioned floor area and then the proposed additional garage?