Doug_N

I suspect the problem that you are running into is using short wall segments to get the foundation offset for the bumped-out wall details. CA does not deal with small wall offsets very well, so one alternate is to use slabs to mimic the solid concrete where required. In perspective, I used a different colour concrete so that the foundation edit could be more clearly seen

More like grapefruits to pomegranates

Hi Michael. Please post the plan file so that people can see the problem and suggest a method or work around to achieve your desired design.

Eric, just wondering, why doesn't CA support export to a IFC format? It would seem a natural from the 3d model once fully developed. Enyone know?

Oops. lol

What makes you think this? I have a college architectural student intern working in my office now that is using an educational version of CA. Traffic on this forum is certainly not down from what I can see. Quite the contrary. I don't know if there are any statistics that are available for this forum but I would be amazed to see a downturn. You can make an ICF model by making your own ICF wall type. I have an ICF project now that is going quite well. I don't know where you are going, but if you think some other software company will treat you better, well good luck with that.

if you have your building already done with no terrain specified, and then import the dxf file, the terrain will automatically adjust to the existing building. Then when you open the terrain specification DBX you can adjust the difference between some point of interest and the first floor in the dialog.

To change the preference of getting richtext or plain text for the leader, use the preference menu Then uncheck this box that will result in getting this when you click on the leader menu

Hi Newell, I think this is exactly what you are looking for:

If you want to see those in section you can do it by attaching a variable to the macro that identifies which stair you are talking about like this: Here I use the global variable $s1 to identify which stair set I am referring to, $s2 for the next stair set and so on. %$s1riser_total=num_treads+1% Risers Run %$s1run=tread_depth%" Rise %$s1rise=riser_height.round(2)%" Then in a text box next to the stairs in elevation you put %$1riser_total% Risers Run %$s1run%" Rise %$s1rise%" A bit of a kludge but it works.

Shayne, In plan view you can attach test to the stairs and use a macro like %num_treads+1% Risers Run %tread_depth%" Rise %riser_height.round(2)%" The number of treads is plus one to count risers which is the way most architectural drawings will specify a flight of stairs. Unfortunately, you can't do this in a section or elevation view with macros.

I have a client that has used my design services over the years, and they have asked me to give them layout drawings with the snap grid visible and the drawing un-dimensioned. For this view they want the visible grid to be 2' squares. Other than drawing the grid with construction lines is there a way to just make the snap grid visible in the layout drawing?

The room dimensions are what real estate companies are looking for when they post floor plans to listing ads. I do floor plans without dimensions for this purpose for some of my building clients.

Ryan, you nailed it. Great answer, thanks. (Smack my forehead for not thinking of that myself)

Strange, the square unit with the fan on top is not in my library. What the heck??

Does anyone have a square air conditioner symbol? The unit that I am looking for has a fan on the top and is usually mounted on either a small pad or on wall brackets.

Line spacing too. lol ;-)

Double ceiling plates can serve 2 independent purposes. 1) To spread the load from the structure above over the studs more evenly 2) To act as a fire stop to inhibit the spread of flame in the interior structure of a wall to the assembly above. When a house has more than one dwelling unit, often the simplest way of complying with fire code in a wall assembly is double ceiling plates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcwaI18ngeY

Decisions based on price can be good for casual users, but when it comes to serious professional practitioners, well then I think the metric changes. For example, have you ever seen a professional carpenter use a Black and Decker power saw? I bet they would have a Milwaukee or a DeWalt. Same for auto mechanics. A guy tinkering in his garage would probably have a Master Craft socked set, but an auto mechanic who earns their living with their tools may have Snap On or Milwaukee. Why pay more for tools with similar features? They are more reliable, have better features.

When you say value, what do you mean?

Awww COME ON! Someone downvoted a corny joke??? What is this world coming to? Rich, your the man. Your statistical analysis of who read what was very interesting, and it actually gave me pause to think. What is it that we (users of CA) find really important? Technical help of the cost of licensing the product? If cost is the only thing that matters we would all be using SketchUp or PC paint. But I suppose this change to the license is sort of like stubbing your toe. For the moment the pain is all we think about. That and whether or not the kids heard what we said about stubbing our toe. Anyhow, nicely done Rich

Larry is how I spell Rich, it's a Canadian spelling. Well that's my story and I am sticking to it.

It seems changing the terms of use and making the program a subscription program has affected everyone and nearly everyone who was part of the forum had something to say about it. a glitch or an educational video may only affect a few of us, and then only fewer say anything about it. I know I don't read every post, maybe net even half of them and I am a pretty active member on this forum. But I certainly had a lot to say about this license change. Larry that was an astounding analysis though. Perhaps you missed your calling and should have been a forensic accountant! Your post casts a very interesting light on what turns our cranks! Well done.

Here is what it boils down to. CA has changed how they are going to license their products, namely by moving to a complete subscription model rather than a maintenance/upgrade model. In some circumstances to be determined by CA a licence can be transferred to another party. CA is the sole arbiter as to what those circumstances are. Users never owned the software, they only had a license to use exclusively a copy of the software, and only on one computer at a time, (one for each license held.) CA has made everyone who is a current user, or investigates becoming a future user that the rules have changed and there will be no NEW permanent licenses after Jan 10, 2023 Existing current SSA users will still, and continue to have, permanent licenses unless their SSA lapses. In that case they will not be able to renew the SSA on a permanent license. Any perceived value to the license holder has been removed for most cases, (pretty much in line with other competitors.) Any further discussion is beating a dead horse because CA isn't going to budge on this issue. Their mind is made up. Dead horse beaters are welcome to continue posting, but there isn't much point in the rest of us reading those posts any more. I think we all now know what everyone thinks.