cv2702

Got it, thanks! Too bad you can't replace the original symbol in the core catalog...

I spent an hour trying to find how to break up that 2D block, adjust it and retain all of its original attributes. Can you point me to a video or article on this?

In floor plan view, when placing a CAT7 receptacle, the literal 'C7' appears, a bit offset to the right of the object. How can I move that literal where I want it? I also would like to add a literal 'RJ11' to the telephone jack receptacle, not using a standard label, but rather baked in to the symbol itself, as with the CAT7.

Many of you are avid users of DropBox. Me too. There are issues with any cloud sharing service (DropBox, OneDrive, Google Drive...). If you're using a cloud service so others can 'view' plans or whatever, then no problem. If you give 'write' access to your users, as in a collaborative arrangement, then beware. With DropBox for example, all your users will have a local copy of the plans and any local change will get the cloud copy synchronized. Great, that's the objective (except for the conflicting situations if there is too much concurrent work). But it also means that any of your users inadvertently deleting their local copy will trigger the deletion of the copy in the cloud which in turn will delete all local copies. You should have regular backups of your cloud content. DropBox does give you the option to recover deleted files, but in an active environment, this can be a nightmare: I know for having lived it. In my opinion, it's not a good idea to give 'write' access to your 'common' cloud service. One approach is to give users 'read' access to the common pool of plans in the cloud. Each user will get a local copy of the plans, be able to modify only his/her local copy. Once that user is done, he/she copies the work onto a separate cloud depot, where only an administrator and that user have 'write' access; that does imply one such depot for each user in the group. Once certified by the administrator, the plan is then moved to the common pool of plans in the cloud. This post would not have been created if DropBox allowed the exclusion of deletes when providing 'write' access.

I agree all these solutions work, except that using a roof plane is not very intuitive when the goal is a sloped floor, nor is a molding, and a terrain converted to a symbol? I admire you warriors that get the job done, one way or another. But why not simply have parameters in the room specification/structure that deal with slopes? I guess the answer is that it would only be relevant for shower floors, but still wishing... P.S. I know I have to dig into polylines

I know many of you experts here often mention Polylines to solve those awkward situations. I'm not yet at that level, so I offer a relatively simple solution for sloped shower floors: use soffites, as counterintuitive as it may seem! I've searched videos, knowledge base and posts to find a simple solution for sloping shower floors. Soffites can be sloped. Be advised that soffites apparently cannot be set to any material; I had to paint from an adjoining wall to get both the pattern and the texture of the tiles I wanted. Adjust the floor height of the 'shower' room to accommodate the slope.

Understood. I would imagine that basements in AZ aren't that popular. Up north, they're a necessity in general because the ground can freeze to 4 feet or more, especially this winter. I like your approach, getting down into the wall definitions. The advantage with the 'furred' setting is that it allows one to visually set up a finished basement by drawing and clicking settings. But given the issues I had using this approach ( a bug I believe), I'll keep your approach in mind the next time.

Eric, What do you mean when you say "redrawing the furred walls"? I tried moving/deleting/resizing one wall, but same result. I also noticed in your attached picture that all the furred walls end up with the wall covering, even though I had defined only the east outside wall as ving one; even the interior side of the inside wall ends up with some wall covering, albeit different. Would you mind sharing the resulting plan so I can try to see the differences? On a side note, when I change that east outside wall back to a 'frame through', that wall then shows the wall covering. Change it back to furred, no show. Which brings me to a second point. Once I've set up the basement furred walls, what are the consequences of changing them back to frame through? I can't see any. What's your take? Bottom line: something finicky with these furred walls.

Please see attached plan. Go to level 0 and create a camera view in Sub-room-1. Both the east outside furred wall and the inside wall have a wall covering defined, but only the inside wall will show it. The project includes a finished basement with a tiled shower against an outside wall. I need that 12" strip of mosaic all around. I can think of a few workarounds, but I didn't find anything on furred walls that would disallow wall coverings. Test - Wall covering.plan

Not uncommon. What would be interesting is what each party said about the other not doing things right. I'm using the latest Nvidia drivers and doing just fine with CA and all other fronts. Go figure.

@Rich_Winsor - Thanks, I had inadvertently changed the material properties. Getting back to Predefined material did the trick. @Chrissb222 - From my limited experience, I find that on darker images Photon does make a difference, but not as much on lighter images.

I'm trying to reproduce your output. What material adjustments did you make to the copper if any? What were your RT settings? I just can't get even close to that output.

Could be that there is a lock on that file (template). Use Computer Management/System tools/Shared folders/Open files to see if the file is already opened and by whom Could be a security issue. Look at the Properties/Security tab of that file and check the permissions. As others have mentioned, could be the path is not resolved. From Windows Explorer on a participating PC, try to navigate to that directory. If you can't, the error message should point to the cause

Mick, Thanks. 100 textures sounds like a major restriction. Back to the viewer I guess.

Alan, Thanks for the pointer. I gave Sketchfab a try, but my results looked more like a post nuclear blast. I acknowledge this is not CA related, but perhaps via a PM you could explain how you "post process the 3D settings for lighting & tome mapping".

Alan, What's the process you followed to get your CA out to Scketchfab?

You guys have made great points. But here's my take. How would this drafting table make me more productive for the money? How would drafting with my fat fingers on a touch display be more precise than a mouse pointer a few pixels wide? Would I be trading the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome for muscular stress? I can certainly see the glitz of having one of these as an exhibit medium. I also see some benefit of visualizing more details on a 65" 4k display, but I could also get a less expensive 65" monitor. Unfortunately, Ideum's site basically talks about specs, which I LOVE, but nothing on ROI from an architectural point of view.

Thanks for the detailed procedure on rolling back Nvidia drivers. I recently switched from ATI (AMD) to Nvidia, but was hesitant because of issues often reported with newer Nvidia driver versions. I have not seen any issue so far with 388.13 on a GTX 1070 Ti, so it's possible that regression testing is not up to par at Nvidia for older cards. Ironically, I may fall into that 'older' category once the Titan's and subsequent cards become more mainstream.

Open the object, General tab: Elevation preference : tempting to use 'from terrain', but in my experience, this introduces issues visible mostly in camera view; I leave it at 'finished floor' Finished floor to top: '0' should set that pool flush with the surrounding

Nice, but when I see "request pricing", I suspect I'm in for a shocker.

When you mention your clients visiting your design center, what do you envisage them doing on their own with CA? I could see your clients, for example, navigating a 3D walkthrough of the plans you prepared for them. For this you could set up a complementary tool to CA, the standalone 3D viewer, along with some basic overview of how to use it. From my limited personal experience, I don't see a client using CA itself. It's a technically complex piece of software that would mostly get your clients in trouble and lower their satisfaction level.

Thanks, those articles cleared up lots of questions for me on texture handling.

I now see a pattern with manual ramps. If the stair's ramp is parallel to the deck's ramp, the two rails will join. But perpendicular ramps won't join: ... and in this case, notice that the top newel sits on the top stair, not on the deck. I verified this with interior stairs and it's the same issue. Auto ramps don't exhibit this issue, but you can't control where the bottom newel sits: it will sit on the floor.

Gave manual ramps a try but got into a different issue. I'm thinking it may be because the stair attaches to a deck with railings, as opposed to regular walls. Auto ramps put the bottom newels on the floor/terrain, but get the upper part done ok: Manual ramps on my plan produce 2 anomalies. First, it sets a newel on the upper step, short of the edge of the deck: Second, the deck's railing creates the opening for the stair but doesn't put a newel to which the stair's ramp can attach to: So for now, I've reverted back to auto ramps. but any suggestions to get the manual ramps going will be welcome. The issue I ran across with this approach is that I couldn't customize the landing to make it look exactly like a step.

How do I have the bottom newel land on the last stair instead of on the ground?