stephenbc

Yes, that would work. Thanks.

Thanks Chop...not sure I understand how to 'block a hole to a symbol'...do you have time to elaborate?

Yes, I agree, it would require the same behaviour as a sink cut-out in a countertop. Perhaps that functionality just isn't there. This particular symbol was the closest I could find to the lights being used, even with sizing. Again, it's for a close up rendering.

Sorry Mick...the light on the right was simply dropped lower so that you can see that it has glass further up in the light bezel. Pic is from Chief, just that it's a close up of the two lights to show the issue of the ceiling blocking the inside of the left light. The light was imported (.dae) into Chief. I've attached a simple plan box with some lights so you can see what I mean. LED light.plan

Is there a way to not have the finished ceiling pass through recessed lights such that the actual recessed part is observable? I realize one can change the point for which the light shines from (i.e. say just below the ceiling), but this more for aesthetics/realism.

I simply create a CAD view and dimension everything there. It's certainly a bit of trial and error as sometimes you have to scrap what you've done, change something in the cabinet, then recreate the CAD section and dimension from there. The lack of a dynamic link makes this process quite tedious, but I've learned that when I get to about 80-100% of what I want, all further edits are made in the CAD view, saved and updated as needed.

This topic, spurred by CA’s announcement, has been an interesting read given the thoughts and feelings expressed. I can’t help but offer my own. The subscription model is usually embraced by companies that believe that a predictable stream of revenue will help them plan production as well as R&D. Large software companies have been pushing this for years and other industries are taking notice. Some electric vehicle manufacturers are looking at subscription services to ‘enable’ heating or air conditioning, all to help identify revenue streams to effect (supposedly) more efficient planning. They also hint that predictable revenues reduce large fluctuations in stock pricing. I say ‘supposedly’, because the better planning rationale seems to fly in the face with history. Some companies are really good at planning, others not so much. So, is this model really necessary, or is there a need for better management? I’m speaking generally about the model, not specifically about CA’s management. Either way, it is hard to know if this model is more of a benefit to a company or to the user of a company’s products. Regarding the ability to sell software licenses, of all the software I’ve purchased, I’ve never been able to legally re-sell it. That type of activity is usually clearly prohibited. However, I’ve worked for a software company for over 14 years and note that we allowed the ‘transfer’ of licenses to various sites within a company. I think that being able to sell a license is a huge luxury given all the wording of most license agreements out there. If CA agreed to some of you that sold, I suspect they did it because they were more concerned with building a reputation by getting as many people to use the software. This is common with software companies of a small to medium size. However, things do change once a critical mass is reached, both in size and the potential for future revenues, given all the competition out there. What’s somewhat different with CA is this forum of super users and casual users, those that expect instant results and those that are willing to work through a problem. I’ve always been impressed by the fact that if I have a question, I can get an answer pretty quick, right here. That type of support is free, offered by long-time, dedicated and loyal users (some super users). Such support is gold to the user, but more so (I think) to CA, because it alleviates the burden of time and support at their end. I suspect most of the loyal users are somewhat miffed at the prospect of this model because they’ve made such a deep dive into learning the software nuances such that there is a feeling of ownership. And, such ownership is incongruent with this proposed new model. I can only suspect that CA’s desire to grandfathering in the status quo (SSA each year) is because of the realization of this loyalty. I also suspect that the complications of managing two pricing models will ultimately force the SSA price up to a point that grandfathered users will have no choice but to switch 3-5 years from now. I personally don’t like the subscription service model. The main reason is historical and has to do with pride of ownership. Subscription service seems much like a rental. Do you look after a rented product the same way as one that’s (theoretically) owned? Perhaps that only applies to tangible objects, not software? Because, after all, we never really ‘own’ the software; we license it. Payment, however, makes one feel like they own it. I think people tend to look after tangible things more if they own them. In the case of software, perhaps some wouldn’t be as loyal a user or perhaps wouldn’t spend much time helping others? I certainly hope not. There is no doubt that this model change would cost the user more. SSA is $595. The subscription model essentially has that amount at $1,995. Ignoring the nice $1,000 discount for the first year, those that switch will be paying $1,400 more each year. In all, it appears that CA felt that they were not getting enough revenue for their products/services, not just from new sales, but from current users. What do all those loyal and very helpful super users/beta testers get in return for their hard work?

I think (although, I'm surmising here), that other than solids, objects can only be rotated in the plane for which they were originally created on.

I too struggle with the X14 simply closing down without warning after creating sections, and viewing in perspective view. I highly suspect that it is due to legacy plans (plans created in earlier versions of the software). Learning to live with it...autosave function is helpful.

Open your Wall Specification and go to your Structure tab, under Framing. Is the 'Retain Wall Framing' checked? If so, uncheck it and your framing tool will come back.

I got the message today and installed the update. Was disappointed that there were not obvious graphic fixes...the crashes are getting long in the tooth.

Depending on how the interior of that upper floor is framed (e.g. does it have a flat ceiling in some areas, or is it all vaulted with knee walls), perhaps make a standard floor height and use the roof planes to define the ceiling. Might need to manually modify some roof planes to get the desired pitch. Chief has some videos on how to make dormers and their connected walls (i.e. Manually Drawing Dormers (chiefarchitect.com).

That means I'm a vampire....

Well, I've been reporting this 'Device Removed' problem for a few months now and I'm using a GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER (Windows 10) and have been feeling no joy since upgrading to x13. I used to work in the s/w business so understand the complexities surrounding such issues. However, my productivity is falling through the floor as EVERY time I load up a camera view I get a full system crash after simply viewing and rotating the model in perspective view. There is a much deeper issue here and I suspect it is a CA issue...if I had a dime for every time there is a memory leak in software development...

I find that depending on the light you use, sometimes if the 'spot' is selected and the direction of the light isn't straight down (as in the dialogue box below), light can travel through walls and even floors.