Doug_N

As Kbird said the trusses aren't really CA trusses, you have made them yourself. So you could take the top cord,copy and paste in place, Then shorten the bottom end one of the copies to end just short of the birdsmouth Shorten the top end of the second copy to the same place and then change the depth of that part to match the rafters. Kbirds method is a bit more elegant though.

I think this is what you are looking for This can be set in the default dbx change the default ceiling plate for exterior walls to the beam size. You can make the wall so that the main part of the wall is invisible, air for example. Just a bit of a quick work around that I came up with between clients today.

I am from Canada, and this question here would be addressed to a structural engineer, not an architect.

Doing terrain matching is a bit tricky, but with patience and perseverance it can be done, and quite well. Do you have a grade plan, or a topographical survey that you can post?

I fail to see what this has to do with a question or with CA. As a member of this forum, I would suggest you do not post advertising here.

The first question that comes to my mind is did you sign a contract for this job, and is so, what were the conditions of who owns the design. The second question I would ask is what did you agree to give the client in terms of transferring the design information to the client? Without knowing those answers, it is difficult to formulate a helpful answer. If you don't have to sell or transfer it to the client, why would you? How long would it take someone to reverse engineer the building from what you gave them? If you feel you should transfer the file, charge about 25% of what your hourly rate would be to recreate the file from your transferred drawings. Just my thought. Anyone else?

LOL ;-)

I don't think that it can be done.

Joe, I misread your post. I thought you were referring to the size of the text, not to indicate the units. Using a note to indicate that the contour info is in feet should satisfy the plans examiner.

Michael, Thanks for the update and lesson. Whenever I get a chance, and that is not often lately (busiest year I have ever had) i try to do some Ruby coding. Where did you get the resource material to learn the syntax and methods? The CA help file is amazingly terse. Doug

Mysterious but wonderful when it works.

OK so that didn't divide out the units. Different units and different operand. Ruby displays the results in inches having converted the feet to inches then displaying the result in inches. If we do this instead %(12.ft+12.in)/1.inch% the result is 156 with no units. And with this %((12.ft+12.in)/12.in)% you get a numerical value that is unitless but is the number of feet - 13

Hi Michael, About it storing the value in inches, I don't think so. The result of dividing by .inches, causes Ruby to cancel out the units altogether. the %width% variable is stored as x.inches, which is why in the original formula the result comes out y" x z" When %(width/12.inch).round% x %(height/12.inch).round% is used, all references to units is lost and the result becomes unitless. At least that is what I think is happening. Doug

Glad to help.