RL-inc

The water color view looks great for a CD cover page. I use tech illustrations but will try WC for sure.

X9 for me. First design software and computer. Spent the previous part of my career in the field running framing crews and contracting jobs. The marriage of the 2 along with the help of this forum have evolved into a great business.

Can be used for all required CD details

Simpson makes some great hanger options for that situation as well.

I have had situations where I have needed say a 6" wall segment to be separated from the larger wall line but still want the same wall type. Granted - not often- but it comes up occasionally.

Interesting- so what is the way of defining minimum wall length now? Or is there one?

If you want to be proficient with manual roofs you better learn how to use them

There is a min wall length setting. Not at my computer to see where it's at right now.Maybe a quick search.

Not that this is related to the CA portion but regarding materials lists- I would be careful. I not only design quite a few remodel but build them out and the one thing I can tell you with 100% certainty is that there is nothing certain about the exact amount of materials required in them. you can never be sure what's behind those walls- under those floors - above those ceilings- until the demo is done. I am sure you can get close but a disclaimer to your builder might be a good idea.

Agree with David- somewhat..... By your post it looks like you have pretty good bones in your rig now and the clean sweep may do the trick... but I may not be seeing the whole picture- and I am by no means a tech guy.

Viki- Not sure who you have been talking to But I use High Desert Computers in Redmond- can't even imaging he'd be anywhere near that kind of $$$$ for a clean install. DM me if you want more info.

Agreed with all of the above- industry standards. common studs lengths: 88 5/8" 92 5/8" 104 5/8" Then add 4 1/2" for plates creates rough wall height.

Don't get me started on training new building department employees . Our plan review department has gone to an eplans system and requires that all pages be named in this way. It was a bit of a PITA in the beginning but has worked out ok.

Great idea Rene on the no room def. I'll give that a whirl sometime

To follow up on Wendy's contribution - yes, that page naming convention is an industry standard of sorts. (Our local jurisdiction requires pages be labeled in this fashion.) Architectural pages are labeled as follows: A0.0# for plan notes and general A1.0# for plan views A2.0# for elevations A3.0# first sections So on Mechanical M0.0# Structural S0.0# Etc.... Not at computer to delve deeper but I am sure a quick search will offer the full list and description.

You always have the option of creating any given material as needed in CA.

Yikes That's quite the design conundrum. IMO no matter how you work this roof you will have an odd look based on the footprint. Maybe more of a modern slant with a simpler shed plane would help.

Unless I am missing something Kbird's method is correct in regards to how I construct this situation and how it is built in the field. I am always manually adjusting the top and bottom of foundation walls for sloping lot conditions. It can be tedious but that's what is required and sometimes.

Agreed with all of the above. While CA does a passable job on most of the truss design I need the small details at the fascia line can be frustrating. One in particular are truss tails that show an unusual drop at the very end unless pulled away from the fascia which leaves a unwanted gap in plan view

Hard to tell for sure but it appears that the span on the addition is narrower than the main body. If so you need to adjust the pitch and set the ridge heights to match. If the spans are equal than plate heights may need to be adjusted. In general the overall roof design doesn't look right. The hip on the right side of the main body seems odd to me .....but that is just my opinion.

Will need to rebuild or manually lower roof planes as well if the have been created

Tigers idea makes sense. Should reduce the overall file size I think.

Very simple to import SKP file into CA- I download from 3D Warehouse to a specific file and then import as 3D symbol. Works great

I was not aware- didn't see it in the OP signature.

How about a dbx for the footing to check like "builds with wall footing" or something that tells the pad to generate as part of the continuous footing.