DG1949

Time and again there are ideas and discoveries shared here that I have yet to see in the help files, and sometimes the help files are not really of very much help. One man's "new discovery" may well be another man's "trivial item". 

Didn't mean to confuse anyone with my tongue-in-cheek comment about "imagination".

Anywhere the I.R.C is used, it's pretty standard to do a fully dimensioned floorpan of each level at min. 1/4" scale, four directional (NESW) exterior elevations, with story-pole dimensions, and as many structural "section" elevations (with framing elements (and maybe their labels) turned on as it takes to show the CEO how each section of the building will actually be built. (Rim joists, P.T. sill plates, sill-seal, anchor bolts with embedment dimensions, joist hangers, rafter hurricane ties, rebar in the foundation wall are examples.) That also entails dimensions and descriptive callouts that eliminate guesswork on the part of the CEO as to what he is actually looking at, and re-assure the Inspector that you have a competent knowledge of the code to which you are building. If you don't specify it, the builder could use his own imagination, citing your plans (or lack thereof) and the battle would begin. No CEO wants to deal with that scenario.

23 minutes ago, Michael_Gia said:

I think I like the portrait view for my drawing sheet that way my plan is oriented the way I like to work on it. 

 

All that's left is for Chief to make this send to layout as I see it in plan view...

Create a new template that displays in portrait orientation?

That section of the wall seems to have been created on the first floor level, and doesn't know that it is supposed to be a foundation wall.  You could copy and paste to Level 0 (delete the windows that might go with it) or re-create that section while you are on Level 0, with the regular (non-pony)"stucco" foundation wall. In that case, you will likely have to make the new first floor wall a pony wall in order to get the result you're looking for. 

No matter what, Chief thinks that's a first floor wall, which is why it doesn't show up in Level 0. 

Hi,

Have sent an email. 

Hi Justin,  That's controlled by the "eave Sub Fascia" dimension in the structure panel of the build roof dialogue box. Make it the same as the depth of the rafter and it should work. 

You may have to click it "on" first, then, when you get what you want, you can click the sub fascia "off" again. 

Excellent work, you guys! Thanks for the tips. 

11 hours ago, Designer1 said:

Im looking at the standing seem metal in chiefs X11 and I think they erased the good standing seam textures.  This isnt even a standing seem metal anyway it has deep grooves in it.  Any ideas where the real standing seam metal went?

Agreed. There used to be better versions of all the metal roof mats. Increasing the width to a realistic profile helps a little bit, but not much. 

6 hours ago, para-CAD said:

Unchecking roofs, labels did not work.

 

I guess I will delete the roof and start over.

I don't want to confuse things but if you look at the layer control box that you posted, you will see "Roofs, Baseline Polylines", which is still checked.  If you uncheck that layer display, the 12 in 12 labels and the baseline polylines will all disappear. 

Thank you so much. Sorry about the font difficulty. It seems like something that CA could fix easily, so I suppose we just have to hope for the best. In the meantime, I'm glad to hear, thanks to your bravery, that your iMac didn't blow up when you opened CA. When I upgraded to High Sierra, way back, I had severe problems with mouse behavior and sluggishness that mad it nearly unusable. Fortunately, they fixed it with the next CA update.  I feel much more at ease upgrading to Mojave now.  

I really appreciate that you have taken the time to respond to me with such great and thorough info. Thanks again!!  Don

Hi LevisL, I would be very much interested in hearing your opinion about MacOS Mojave in general and X10 within it in particular.  I've held off upgrading to Mojave in fear of what might happen to CA as a result. 

On 12/7/2017 at 7:36 PM, Chopsaw said:

I would say that is a bug. And it might be a good idea to send it in but if you need to get the drawings done you can place a physical object above and below and off to each side that will be cropped in layout. Or top left and bottom right may work just as well.  

I have only recently discovered that I have the same "bug".  But your workaround is definitely the fix.  Thank you!!!

It may be a setting I messed up, but I sure can't figure out what it might be. 

On 8/17/2017 at 4:41 PM, Alaskan_Son said:

 

You're welcome. Just wanted to make sure and clarify though… I would typically recommend dimensioning to an actual 3-D object whenever possible. The method I spelled out above is more of a stopgap solution for those situations where there is no real usable snap point... which is often the case in elevation views. 

Michael,  Great tip!  I've been pulling my hair out over this problem.  Thanks!

I've experienced the same thing with most recent update. In my case I had a layout file with a perspective full overview with "Physically Based" render technique that worked fine until the update.  Now it's a blank layout box. I've duplicated my situation in this image. 

On 2/19/2018 at 5:02 PM, Alaskan_Son said:

 

First off, we don't have a "rotate plan feature".  What we have is a Rotate Plan View tool, and I don't think there's anything buggy about it whatsoever.  You just need to know what its for.  As I previously stated above, what that tool does is rotate your drawing board so to speak.  Its like taking a set of paper prints and rotating them.  EVERYTHING rotates...including your text drawing axis, grid...everything.  If you want to simply rotate your object(s) within the plan then you need to use a different method. 

I stand corrected.  We have a "Rotate Plan View tool" feature.  I'm glad it works, out of the box, the way you, and others, like and expect it to.

A word to the wise: the rotate plan feature is not only counter-intuitive, it produces an entire Pandora's box of problems with text display, that will make you crazy.  If you have to add an addition, start from scratch.  Buggy and buggy!  Please fix. 

Just updated to Sierra on late 2015 iMac and CA 8 has slowed to an absolute crawl.  I would caution anyone with a similar machine and in the middle of an important workflow to think twice about Sierra at this point.  Everything was fine until Sierra, which is not playing nice with CA8 Prem.

  Model Name: iMac

  Model Identifier: iMac17,1

  Processor Name: Intel Core i5

  Processor Speed: 3.3 GHz

  Number of Processors: 1

  Total Number of Cores: 4

  L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB

  L3 Cache: 6 MB

  Memory: 32 GB

 AMD Radeon R9 M395 2048 MB

Just updated to Sierra on late 2015 iMac and CA 8 has slowed to an absolute crawl.  I would caution anyone with a similar machine and in the middle of an important workflow to think twice about Sierra at this point.

  Model Name: iMac

  Model Identifier: iMac17,1

  Processor Name: Intel Core i5

  Processor Speed: 3.3 GHz

  Number of Processors: 1

  Total Number of Cores: 4

  L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB

  L3 Cache: 6 MB

  Memory: 32 GB

  AMD Radeon R9 M395 2048 MB

In regard to the original post, none of the problems attendant to the control of rim joists that D. Scott Hall pointed out has been fixed (Chief X-7).  Yes, we can work around it, but wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to?