Renerabbitt

Tanya is a client of mine for her home kitchen remodel and is very pleasant to work with, I recommended the Chief community for her project

I loved Dropbox for its mobile features and overall functionality...but was too expensive for multi user when I priced it out several years ago.

It would help to have more information about your intended office collaborative. multiple users or just switching from desktop to laptop? I personally use Microsoft OneDrive as I had a lot of trouble with chief crashing in Google's Backup and Sync service, and Dropbox's pricing was too much for multiple business users. My x10 root is in OneDrive as well as my working .plan and .layout files. OneDrive does a fantastic job of authoring which allows me to work with live cloud updating. I chose to keep my files locale and constantly updating as opposed to dlownload on demand option. Something to note, if you plan on sharing the user library, you must wait for it to fully upload from one machine and fully download to the next or OneDrive will upload with the computers name tag attached to the user library essentially creating a copy that will not be seen by CA until it is renamed to "user_library." Same confliction methods apply to .plan and layout. If you have it open in both machines, one will produce a saved file with the computers name tagged to it.

This issue was solved by the OP in her second response.. whenever there are two horizontal faced planes at the exact same coordinates they will fight each other in 3D views, the same is true for external 3D programs as well. Moving one object up or down a smidge will give priority and fix the issue

Thank you, I ran it through Thea a few years ago without changing a thing just to see what details would pop up missing. Obviously some funny details here and there but still happy with the overall feel..funny to see it change and see mistakes..one of these days I’ll pump some more hours into it

This is news to me, do you have a reference? I did know that you could continue a wall and just put r-15 but hadn’t run into problems using 2x4 assembly. I’ve read through so much new code in the last couple days my head is spinning. I suppose I should collect my resources before I contribute more to the conversation. What I keep finding contradictory info on is that the min mandatory is up towards u-factor of .102, and then I find it at .051...what a huge difference, and both point toward apendix j04 with dated documents only months apart in the first quarter of 2017. So if performance methods must meet minimums of .102 then it’s feasible that you could use just r-15 in new assemblies, but if the min is .51, the performance approach technically would not be acceptable unless there is some exception that I can’t seem to find. I understand that people ARE using the performance approach and avoiding continuous insulation, but does this actually meet code requirements and can anybody explain why this would be allowable. this is table 150 from the energy code: I like to go to battle with overwhelming amounts of irrefutable hard data, and I feel as if I have a bag of hear-say and conjecture which is my own lack of clarity and experience as I typically only deal with remodels and frankly, just can’t seem to find a timeline of unbroken data. This forum is amazing btw, such a talent pool.

What a great compliment to get. I love hearing that. first two renders I ever did was about 12 years ago...and man did it take me FOREVER! Like 2 weeks and a month respectively. Both in chiefs ray trace and I was too stubborn to ask for help. I wasn’t getting paid or I would’ve likely been canned. The second one went through 14 redesigns as it was just a fictitious and completely unrealistic conceptual living room

I’m in complete agreement that the performance approach can get you around mandatory measures, mkennedy2000 is helping me get through some res software so I can get on your level of self performing the calcs. Still, I consistently find information that contradicts this approach. See attached: Exceptions may apply is never spelled out in this document. I would conclude that if you can reasonably show an overall performance package that satisfies the intent of the code, then the plan checker can get on board with it.

It's a shame that REScheck isn't compliant in Cali

Thank you for the resource, and how AWESOME is it that you can get water/vapor barrier assembly out of this Any problems you've run into using the spray foam. I wonder if the trade off is there for hiring a sub to spray or in-house install of rigid and a thicker wall assembly. Considering doing the performance method as Perry mentioned

Awesome work, that's gotta feel so good to get it so close to reality. Here's a budget rough conceptual render I just did for a designer. 5 hours on terrain/pavement/curbs/etc, 1-1/2 hour setting up the render settings for all future renders and additional imported items, and 1/2 hour rendering. Not realistic, but good enough

It's my understanding that all exterior wall assemblies going forward in climate zones 1-5 and 8-16 will require some form of rigid insulation greater than r-4 for a 2x4 exterior wall, and even in zones 6,7 will still require rigid to meet the u-factor 0.065

Additionally, has anyone incorporated the rigid insulation with a braced wall panel at the exterior side of framing?

I do drafting for a slew of contractors that use the big box stores for their materials. That being said, the prescriptive requirements of U-factor 0.51 for new exterior 2x4 wall assemblies specify cavity insulation of R-15 and continuous R-8. Welp, R-8 isn't all that readily available, so I downloaded an assembly calculator sanctioned by energy.gov that calc'd R-15 with continuous R-6 as meeting the maximum U-factor. Has this been anyone's experience, is R-6 meeting the mark for you California folks?

Thanks Glen, had a feeling that was the case.

best practice is to post your .plan file so we can take a look... just a hunch, do you have two duplicate slabs in place. try deleting it. but please, post the .plan

Love the wall hatching tool, I find it to be far more efficient than changing wall types for new walls, but I always end up changing the hatch to fill. I've even set up a wall hatching layer set with just wall hatching on so I can use the object painter and change to fill. All because I can't find the default dbx so I can change it as a global parameter. Anyone know how to accomplish this?

looks fantastic, truly awesome work, make sure to share the final. Might turn the f stop up, I would never shoot an arch-ext shot in an f-4 etc...more like an f-16, the bokeh is a bit severe and an actual camera would blur concentrically from the focal points whereas a rendering software often is planar in its implementation of the effect.

Very nice, appreciated !

Phone just started ringing, you're going to have to slip in the backdrp..I've gotta get back to work! cheers and good luck

you could make it look 100% real with 80 more hours, haha..but that's usually not worth the time spent

I found most of what I needed. here is a rendering with alpha mask for backdrop: Let me know what tweaks you would like and I'll adjust and do one more pass

could you zip and attach your materials from that export...specifically looking for the tree's textures

feel free to scale and blend with texture. enjoy! American Oak stock and scaled/stained, AMERICAN OAK PLANK.calibz: knotty oak is high res. download from my cloud,https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArIPOe8v1Srkh8cxdtBNn8hF-Ja6OA : stock:scaled and stained:

https://www.deltafaucet.com/for-professionals/product-resources/product-design-files/vero-bathroom best source is the source..convert from revit