glennw

Scott, I am about to run out and haven't got a lot of time. If the Bearing Line doesn't work, use a wall with the Bearing Wall attribute cheked. The horizontal red line is a Bearing Line. The beam is marked as a Bearing Beam. The walls are marked as Bearing Wall. PS. the problem with your horizontal Bearing Line is that it overlaps the floor platform. Have a play with the ends of the line and see what happens when you shorten it up.

Scott, The plan might help. I assume the red objects are referenced objects? What are the cad lines you have selected? A short plain english translation of what you are trying to do with all the pictures may help us.

Scott is correct - forget the retaining walls and instead use Terrain Breaks and normal walls.

Have you fully explored all the options in the window dbx - especially those on the Frame panel.

Another way would be to make a symbol from the roof plane and rotate it flat (negative of roof pitch) using Rotate in the Symbol Specification dbx.

If you can get access to a copy of X10, you could use the Print Model command which prints all the elevations, roofs, etc, so that you can cut them out and make a paper model. This feature was dropped in X11. Is that what you are talking about?

OK, I give up.

Eric, He didn't say he was using Suite, he said HD 2021 - which I am assuming is HD Pro. In which case he can have different rafter sizes in each plan. The fact that the rafter sizes are different in each plan points to him using Pro. No?

Eric, I just opened both plans in Home Designer Pro 2021. Home Designer does have some framing settings and included is rafter size. The Op said he is using HD 2021. The rafter sizes are set differently in both plans as I noted above.

Eric, Oh, Ok. Then how come the rafters are sized differently in the 2 plans?

I don't think this is a bug or a Chief problem. I think it is user error. You have different rafter sizes in the two plans. The metric rafter size is 125mm. The imperial rafter size is 9 1/4". 9 1/4" = 235mm, not 125mm. The small metric rafter size is causing the roof to not cut the walls. So increase the metric rafter size. I think there are some other differences between the two plans as well, but that is the main one I could find without spending too much time on it. I don't understand why you are messing around with imperial measurements if you are drawing in metric - why not just do everything in metric and leave it at that?

I understand that, but what I am suggesting is that you make sure your main plan is centred on the origin and that each of the other plan files that you used to make the individual buildings have been drawn close to the origin before you create your "objects".

Did you check to see how close to the origin you are?

Z fighting can happen when structures are a long way from 0,0,0. Check all your original plan files a see how far away from the origin they are. When you say you have created objects of the buildings, I assume that you mean symbols. I would first check your main plan for origin and then, if the problem persists, check all the building plans. The simple fix is to use Edit Area and move the structures closer to the origin.

Marc I am travelling until the middle of next week I will have a look at it next week if you haven’t received an answer by then

Marc To clarify about the roof Draw a single storey room on the ground floor only, where you want the extra roof, outside the existing building. No floor, roof or ceiling, invisible walls. Auto roofs. Configure the room parameters to get the auto roof you want

Ah, I see that after opening your plan, you already have a .png of the screen. But it was not included with the plan. You need to include the pic with the plan. The problem with the slow down is caused by the number (and maybe shape) of the holes. I deleted the holes one at a time then replaced them one at a time with Undo. Between each undo, I selected the containing polyline - not the Picture Box. Things were OK for the first 3-4 Undo's and then with each progressive Undo things slowed down more and more - the deletions were ok, it just took longer and longer for the containing polyline to get selected.. Maybe send it to tech support and ask them why?

I had a really quick go by doing a screen capture of the panel - which is very poor resolution. If you can get a better resolution image, this way may work a lot better. Take a screen shot, or get a copy of the screen image in .png format. Build Image>Create Billboard Image>enter the path to the image and make any changes>Transparency panel>Use Custom Transparency Color>select the color assigned to the spaces. This may be good enough...or, maybe not - I think it should depend on the resolution of the original image and what you want to use it for.

What you are seeing is the square indicators that are showing Endpoint Snaps - these are legitimate snap points. The small blue circles are showing Extension Line Anchors (extension snaps). They work differently than normal snap points in that they indicate the start of the Extension snap, not the snap point itself, so that if you drag an Extension Line off a snap point and then release the click, that is the point where the object will be placed - not on the location of the Extension Snap circle which is at the start point. Extension Snaps can be toggled off individually for each of the 3 types of extensions - Tangent, Perpendicular and Orthogonal.. You can control the number of Extension Line Anchors that are in the history in Preferences. You can use the 1 key to toggle off any current extension snaps on the fly if needed.

I have always used a third party program to do photo montages. I don't think you can get a good 3D effect by only using a background. This is a very old one.

What tools are you using to draw the roads? Post a plan.

Steve, I am not saying that it does or doesn't work properly, just giving my observations. The stem wall height seems to behave differently for the bay walls and the main floor area walls. The difference between the 2 footing levels is the same as the floor framing height. Normally, with that setting checked, the stem wall height is measured from top of footing to top of floor above, and when it is unchecked the stem wall height is measured from top of footing to underside of floor framing - hence the footing height difference between having that setting checked versus unchecked. For some reason this does not apply to the foundation walls forming a bay window. You may be able to get what you want by unchecking Hang 1st Floor Platform Inside Foundation Walls in the Build Foundation dbx and then in the foundation walls dbx's check Hang Floor Platform Above On Wall and check Include Ledger. Although, I am not 100% sure about any of the above.

Try unchecking "Hang 1st Floor Platform Inside Foundation Walls" in the Foundation Defaults in the Build Foundation dbx.

Thanks John, but I have no idea what you are talking about, it looks like a load of old cobblers to me.

Thanks for doing that John. You can toggle on Arc Centres And Ends on so that you can snap all the centre points to the one cad Place Point.