Doug_N

Chopsaw wrote: All except for the people in California most likely did not consider that it would be a good idea to write the entire code in metric for an industry that does not use metric. Conversion from the metric notation in the OBC is easy, just divide millimeters by 25.4 to get inches, or 3.2808 to get feet from metres. piece of cake. And who can't visualize an 38mm x 140mm to see that it is just a 2 x 6?

The best way to learn code is to see if you can shadow a plans examiner for a few days. Here in the province of Ontario, there are courses that can be taken to learn enough code to pass the challenge exam. When you do your first few design projects you will quickly discover that you didn't learn nearly enough. I have no idea about California Building Code, but it was written by the same type of people who wrote the code here, well then you will understand how to solve Rubic's Cube. What I am saying is there are probably sentences in the code that are modified by other sentences in the code under certain conditions. These are what I call "gotcha" rules. Sort of like trying to drive by looking in the rear-view mirror in a fog only harder. I hope everyone can overlook my tongue in cheek irreverent rant, but what the heck.

No ;-) lol

What I am suggesting here in this thread, is that one of the key design components is the space created by walls. What the engineer decides about structure is to certify the structural integrity of the building, but the designer's responsibility is for the function of the space. Not specifying where the dimensions terminate can result in a misplaced wall, and if there is an error in reading the termination of walls, that error can pretty quickly stack up to a significant error in the placement of a wall. My posts where about how to be clear about what the dimensions are communicating, and why there should be dimensions to exterior surfaces (set back rules), to framing and for finished surfaces. There is not just one rule! The designer has to indicate what the dimensions are saying so there isn't ambiguity. In the case of an engineer changing a wall location for structural reasons, the engineer should have a discussion with the designer who should review the reasons for the change and make design accommodations. It isn't (or shouldn't be) up to the structural engineer to design the functional spaces. I might be wrong, but it seems that the focus of this thread has gone off the tracks about what the focus of the original post was about. That question was where should dimensions terminate?

No, not me.

I have experienced this same phenomenon several times. All of a sudden I can't click on anything. The cursor focus function stops working for a bit. Usually this comes back if I refresh the page or go to a different window and come back to CA again. This does not happen with other windows programs, so my assumption is that CA is processing something and that uses so many resources that it can't process the click buffer. This does not seem to affect the keyboard buffer for windows though because I can alt-tab to a different program. I have not had to shut down CA and restart it though.

I disagree with your closing assertion. dimensioning to framing is a way of ensuring that the designer's intent is carried out. A house framer is more than likely not the contractor that will be doing drywall, or masonry. Where the framing goes is integral to executing the design as required by the architect/designer. Sure you can rely on the trades to figure out what those dimensions should be, but as a careful designer I usually include a framing plan and a finished room size plan. It significantly reduces the finger pointing at a later date when reviewing as built conditions during the construction process. Anyhow, that is my opinion on the matter. I am sure that many of you as design colleagues have different opinions, and that is one of the things that makes this forum worth while.

Dimensioning from the brick is common in as built drawings, but rare in new design drawings. A site plan may have dimensioning from the brick layer to illustrate set back from lot lines though. So, it all depends on what you are trying to illustrate, and who the audience is. Just my opinion.

Thanks Eric for this great search tip.

Rob, My point is that this feature should work automatically. It is in that group, and if it is not intended to work automatically the program should grey out or uncheck the auto height button if tread is selected.

I sometimes would prefer to have the top tread flush with the upper floor level. This is especially helpful when connecting to a 2 x 6 floor joist without fancy drop blocking to connect to the stringers. Examiners are now requiring framing details for how the stair stringers are connected.

It's not sticky and doesn't work at all if Automatic Height is selected

From the help text for this DBX here is how the height reference is supposed to work. The Top Height Reference values control what point on the staircase the Top Height value, below, describes. Select Floor/Landing for the Top Height value to describe the height of the top tread plus the stated Riser Height. Select Top Riser for the Top Height value to describe the height of the top riser. (I have copied this text and pasted it in the graphic as well.) Except that doesn't work if Automatic Heights is checked. In fact, once OK is clicked the default goes back to Floor/Landing. Why is this? Is this just my installation or is this true for everyone?

That is what I was thinking. If it were hard coded then how would you exceed the limits if that was not the code of your area?

Here a link to my suggestion for additional parameters to the stair DBX. If you agree, please click on the link and vote to support it. Thanks

I am going to suggest in the suggestions forum the following: In the setup dialog: Min Tread Depth Max Tread Depth Min Rise Max Rise This would make the stair generator create a code compliant stair system at the get go, (assuming that is what you input), instead of tweaking the number of treads, tread depth and rise. Any thoughts on this?

Does anyone know if it is possible to change the default run (tread depth) to something other than 11? If I change it in the settings dbx, it goes back to 11 once I close the dialog box. Same thing for the default rise.

Nice video and explanation ChiefJeet!

Mick, Changed the included plan file. Thanks for pointing that out. Doug

Mark, Great suggestion!

Hi Amy, Delete the pattern from the geometry and then re-apply it. By the way it is a good idea to create a signature for your posts so that others have some idea of what version of the software you are using, and what jurisdiction that you are in if a post may be subject to some answer that is building code related, or climate related. It is a good idea to include the hardware you use as well.

Then there are the problems inside of the dormer.

I am working on a new build cottage and in this design, there are dormers that are misbehaving (or maybe I just don't know how to use this feature) in that the auto return doesn't seem to work right. Both of these dormers have the exact same dormer roof settings. The dormer on the left is moved 1' behind the plane of the exterior wall, and the one on the right has the front wall of the dormer in the same plane as the exterior wall below. The other thing is a gable roof over a sunroom has a strange artifact in the window cut out. The bottom of the window does is not correct. The area behind the window is an open to below area on the second floor. Anyone have any thoughts about this? I have sent this to tech support as well, because I suspect the dormer issue is a bug. Rice Lake Cottage.zip

Just to join in, yes, I am experiencing the black screen during copy to layout, and if I refresh the layout portal. Sometimes it lasts quite a while and the odd time the program will abend.

Michael, Thank you for your post. You were on the right track. The actual answer came from Vincent BennettTechnical Support AnalystChief Architect I put in a trouble ticket because I thought this was a bug of some sort. Vincent pointed out that the interior framing should have been moved to the main layer. That solved the problem. Thanks Vincent for pointing out the problem with the wall assembly definition.