RL-inc

Perry is right on the paper margins- Go into drawing sheet set up and adjust.

The column you are adding from the library does not have a "framing" face to locate. It is more than likely a symbol and can only locate the outside surface. As for the railing - the rail generally only has two layers to recognize- the outer and inner. Not like a framed wall structure with a true framing layer. If you want to dimension to face of framing you will need to either add cad line or points of dimension to actual deck framing on the framing plan.

You can use any of the materials you like and adjust the pattern or texture styles as needed. Then save to your library for future use.

Chop has a solid idea with locking the layerset- but I will go back to my method of creating a symbol for the structure and locating it on the terrain. If you lock a layerset with the plants on it and then move the terrain you will probably end up relocating the plants and text after the fact anyway. In the real world you won't be dropping the house on the lot and then moving the property lines. By the time you get to landscaping any changes to the structure would be minimal and the majority of the work would be in grading, plant location, etc...

As I mentioned above - and Scott elaborated on- it is becoming increasingly important to determine who you are trying to satisfy with the definition of "Living Area" or "Habitable Space" or "Conditioned Space" or whatever the specific authority deems appropriate. And once you do I wouldn't count on any of the others jumping on board with it

It seems odd that there is not a uniform definition for what should be included in living space. Here in Bend, I have had accessory dwelling unit additions where the size allowed by the planning department was based on a percentage of the "Living Space" of the main dwelling. When I asked how we were defining "Living Space" they told me that was based on the building departments interpretation. The building department has no definition of "Living Space" nor is there one in the Oregon structural code. ( There is a definition of conditioned space however. ) In regards to the stairwell area being counted on both floors, the plan intake department here only started requiring this about 2 years ago. In Portland I have had to include all floors for quite some time. I have also had appraisers only calculate the floor area that the stair system started on and not the open area above. (2 story structure only) The builder and realtor have had some issue with the total living area sq.ft. difference from what I am showing on the plans and what the appraiser says is on site but I have to go back to what he local building department requires to issue a permit and what they will turn in to the assessors office.

Agreed with include in Living area- and so does my building department. Both floors of a stairwell also.

Do you have a picture of what you are after? You can often copy and edit a library item to fit most needs.

Agreed with some of the above posts that keep it simple early on- I don't ever send color views until all of the design layout is dialed. Clients have a tendency to get too caught up on things like tile and flooring and loose focus on the overall scope. A simple dollhouse view and some interior vector views along with the floor plans, such as attached below, work well to get the point across and are great for redline work during client meetings. DuVALLE REMODEL 2ND IDEA 01-28-17.pdf

By no means was I trying to imply that mine was the best / only way to incorporate the house and terrain- just the most efficient way that works for me. I can and do have projects that have the terrain created in the main plan file and they work just fine. My real intent was to help the OP with a method that I think is quite simply and effective for locating the structure on a particular parcel. In regards to updating the model and creating additional symbols based on design revisions of the structure- I find it quite simple really. For any design revisions I always create a new plan file anyway. Then a symbol of that revision can be created, dated and saved to be dropped on the lot in the terrain plan. Once all the revisions are done and the location is confirmed I can copy the terrain to the final CD file - done deal.

Would be very interested this as well.

You can make a symbol out of any number of objects - as long as they show up in the camera tool. Take a full perspective overview of the house - select tool- symbol - convert to symbol-. I generally create as an exterior fixture- keeping the 2d block as plan view. One trick that is a big time saver - create a layer set for "HOUSE SYMBOL" On that layer set turn off EVERYTING that you don't need to see in the exterior view. ( cabinets, interior fixtures, lighting, etc...) if CA has to regenerate those items every time it updates moving the symbol around it takes forever.

Diane- One method that I have used when I have separate terrain and plan files is to make a symbol of the structure and then place it on the terrain. It's very easy to move around in all 3 axis. The beauty is that when your client wants to see what the house looks like in different locations- then she can move it herself instead of having you do it over and over until I ends up where she wants it.

Oddly enough, "3D Warehouse" is actually the name of a very good free one that use frequently for SKP. imports. For supplier specific materials most have them on their websites.

That is this form at it's best. CA's best resource IMO.

Perry and Charles- Worked through it based on your input and all good. Thank you both.

Much agreed with Lew- When I started out with CA I would draw ANYTHING to get the ball rolling with the knowledge that the on the job training was paying for itself. I made sure that I was very competitive in my pricing to get my foot in the door and used the 3d capabilities of CA to show off my services. As I progressed and became faster I was able to finish jobs quicker -thus making more per job. On the flip side - as quality my work improved, especially the renderings for client presentation, I was able raise my prices for any given project.

Will do- Thanks again

Perry- Thanks much for the work on this plan. Makes sense that it would be something like that since it was only on the one side. Unfortunately I am still working in X8. I will try moving the room dividers in my version and se if I can get it straightened out. Again - much appreciated for the help.

I thought I had auto built roof framing in the earlier version I posted. It is in this version. SMITH_ADDITION_7TH_IDEA.plan

Michael- Thank for having a look- I think the roof you are looking at is the one over the front porch which was behaving properly in my plan. The roof on the opposite side is the on that is creating the issue. What I was showing in the screen shot id the difference in the trimmed tails on the right to the full tails on the left.

Attached is the plan- In the very prelim design stages now. The area in question is the new covered deck at the living room addition. SMITH_ADDITION_7TH_IDEA.plan

Perry- Thanks for the response- as you can see in the attached pic I am getting a different result from one roof plane to the other - I have checked the sub-fascia and it is the same on both planes. Compared all of the other suspects I can think of also- trim to soffits, structure setting , etc... Just not sure what is going on. Would be happy to post the plan if someone would have a look

Sorry to be late to the party........really late.....but I just did a search on this problem and it led me here. I am having the same issue on a remodel design I am working on and was wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on what caused the issue with the 2x12 rafters not trimming on some roof planes and trimming to the fascia on others?

Was just starting to type my reply when Michael's popped up. Nice job Michael. Larry- after the truss profile is created you should be able to check "lock truss envelope" and edit as needed.