jasonN

Members
  • Posts

    290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jasonN

  1. Part 9 — Appendix A — Division B (bcpublications.ca) for canadaland
  2. interesting that you would have to specify that(Check Same Roof Height at Exterior Walls), as that setting forces the eave width to vary, if the pitch is the same, as far as I can tell at least by reading of the help: "Check Same Roof Height at Exterior Walls to keep bearing walls the same height and change horizontal roof overhang distances as needed so that eaves meet correctly. When checked, this option ignores any overhang values you may have entered in the Wall Specification dialog. See Aligning Eaves. Uncheck this option to raise or lower some roof planes relative to the wall’s top plate, allowing all horizontal overhangs to be the same unless a non-default value has been entered in the Wall Specification dialog" I use the "Same height eaves" check box as it defaults "on" for me, and it also fixes the OP's problem. Without either of these settings, what I notices is the one roof plane is locked to top plate and the other locked to baseline. When you have neither of the options checked, the baseline for the right roof plane "moves" (As compared to with them checked) from the outside of the wall to the inside. which makes me think it has something to do with the rest of the "L" structure. If I delete the rest of the L structure on the right, then the roof planes draw correctly with neither of those two settings checked. It's like CA is bumping the baseline over due to the abutting structure. It would be interesting to hear what CA thinks about this behaviour. I did check the eave distances for all three scenarios, and they are all at 1'4. so it looks like it is only the baseline "moving" which causes this behaviour. I've seen similar behaviour before as well where the auto created roof planes seem to have different settings, after they are created wrt top plate/baseline differences. Good to know I am not the only one, and more importantly, what might be contributing to it, and potential methods to correct them
  3. thanks all...off to the suggestion board
  4. thanks, putting the spacing at a value that exceeds the deck depth worked to only get one set of posts ...the only scenario I did not try. but it still leaves a min of 16" to the end. On a 3' landing that does not meet the cantilever rule of thumb. ah well. I looked around at deck room defaults but did not find anything to control this. Also looked in the framing defaults but did not see anything. On another note, for this second storey landing, the piles are showing on the first storey(1) instead of the foundation level(0). Any idea on how to get them to show up on the foundation level. i do not see anything in the pile(slab) dbx. I suppose I could build everything on the first storey, but then I suppose the landing would not show on the second storey
  5. I find I am constantly building decks and then deleting posts. Footings beam where CA determines to put them. In this example below I have a landing at the top of the stairs and CA put in 4 posts, where really I want two, and I want them about 10" in from the outside. I know I can manually delete and move(PITA if I have to resize), but is there a way to automatically get just the two posts as the other two are not needed as the joists are hung on the ledger board? I cannot even seem to get the outside beam to be at a certain distance. if for instance I try and do it by setting the beam spacing to something like 20" (for a 46") deck it will not do one at 40". When I specify 10" spacing, the inside and outside beam are offset 16" and the beams are 3 tight in the middle. Any idea where this initial 16 comes form? watched a couple CA videos, searched the forum for "ledger" "deck", did not see anything
  6. No apology needed, I will take the observations any day of the week. you guys are great. Thanks
  7. thanks, funny thing is I was looking at that nine ways to sunday, I was looking at it in the build framing dialog box, where you can also specify this setting, and in there it is correct. There are basically four places you can set this: defaults->2nd floor defaults defaults->floor/ceiling platform build framing->1st->subfloor for floor 2 Room specification->second floor sounds like the last one takes precedence. I changed it and it works. Yes I have some sort of workflow problem or something. This should be a trivial thing to build and I do not think I should have to go in and specify the wood floor when building the second floor, it should take it from the defaults. But it seems because my garage floor was 3" concrete, it was using this. Maybe I'm not setting up the foundation correctly or something. But I do know that now it looks correct: stem walls with no floor at top of footing, top of stem wall 12" above grade, 3" concrete floor at grade.
  8. it is not a crawl space, it is stem walls only, filled with fill. It is the rules here for building above grade, two stories
  9. CA looks to be using my OSB subfloor thickness for the joists as this is the joist which was created. Anyone know where this setting comes from? I tried changing defaults floor platform and floor 2 subfoor to something other than 5/8s and nothing changes after I rebuild the floor. It is still 5/8
  10. trying to build a suite above a garage with stem walls. I did one of these a few weeks ago and I got it right, but this one is wrong. I've been comparing settings but can't find it. When I created the second floor I had to change the floor structure after it was built from 3" concrete to I joist, so I think that had something to do with it. But I've been fidlding for a while and have no luck. Anyone know why I have a midget floor? eric garage suite 2.plan
  11. as inches are the default you can enter 9'2 and it will treat it as 9'2"
  12. Yes , this was a problem. Thanks for the perpendicular tip @solver. When I corrected the perpendicular and snapped per @LevisL the fascia lined up correctly People are probably wondering how I got into this predicament. I think if I remember correctly, originally the addition was 8' ceilings, and when I auto build the roofs, it put in a weird hip in between. Then I went about about "fixing it", albeit poorly. Another interesting tidbit. The odd looking corner for the siding in elevation view ONLY happens when I lift the roof off of the top plate to get an energy heel. If I build the roof with baseline at top of plate, it does not happen. Thanks @LevisL for this tidbit: OPEN LINE DBX AND LOOK AT Y POSITION FOR RIDGE HEIGHT I can then get the lower point of the hip roof. But I'm not sure I understand the need to get the ridge height this way, as the Edit->preference-Architectural->Roofs->automatically place roof intersection points will place an x there for me. Or is this just another way to do it? Is there an advantage of this way or is it a preference? Not sure how that tail got there ont he siding but it might have something to do with the framing as the tuss dbx shows some bizarre looking truss although the framing overview does not. nor does the truss detail Thanks again, I appreciate it
  13. thanks all, @solver, @levisL , I'll be taking a look tommorow at this, hopefully for the final time in preparation for the development permit submittal. The framing will be interesting on that one wall, as the floor will need to rest higher above the current top plate by 12"(they want a 9' floor where exisitng is 8'). Maybe hang the floor, or block under it the exisiting wall. ...for the engineer to figure out
  14. @Mark3D is there a simple way you see this? I spend a significant amount of time trying to pull the corner to get it to match both the vertical and horizontal lines of the plane, where it has to be exactly correct when I let go of the mouse.
  15. thanks a lot, yes I do seem to have the precision issue a lot (but that expand the decimals will help me troubleshoot better). I have not managed to figure out how to properly get the roof planes to line up on a consistent basis, especially when doing the hip. I will admit I knew the 3:12 little roof were off, but as it is being stick built and I did not really know how to find that specific elevation point on the lower side, I left it as the guestimate. Basically I sat there moving it up and down on the one side until it looked ok it elevation. There must be a better way to do that.... I found the top point by using the temp cad marker and pref setting for intersecting roof planes. that worked well. The gap above was me fiddling around trying to get the wall to look proper as i noticed if I have the roof too close to the wall, the siding will not show, so i figured I'd back it right off and see, and then fiddle with the walls
  16. oh and I did have the opposite problem where the facia only drew part way on the right side (maybe only 4 feet from the right). not sure how i fixed that to end up with this. It might have been that be the eave widths were close but not the same
  17. interesting what the truss looks like in the truss dbx, but looks different in the framing overview. must have exceeded my limit, cant post any more pictures
  18. here it is. It is two gables, the addition is 2 9' ceilings, so the addition gable is higher. and there is a sloping roof in between to direct water to front and back. Thanks allbrIan wong addtion3 SIMPLE ROOFS 2.zip I also noticed my ridge cap looks different between the lower and upper roofs. Makes me think something is going on there. For the upper roof I checked the roof ridge height to ensure both planes matched, and they are the same
  19. no, flat cieling only found a few of those and deleted, and tried moving them around. also tried moving the roof plane closer to wall, away from wall for the lower roofs. I never know where is it suppose to land (at the stud, at the sheathing, at the siding(doesnt look like it snaps to that)). but it is the eave, what might an attic wall have to do with an eave? I'll post the plan. this is an addition on an existing house which is why you will see both 2x4 and 2x6 walls
  20. must be a bad day for roofs. the fascia will not join at the top, but if I shorten one eave from say 2' to 1'6" it will work. You probably noticed the wall on the right, I gave up in trying to get the right corner wall working properly after an hour. Any ideas on the fascia? I find it ironic if the eaves widths do not match, the fascia will show correctly, but when I match them they wont. I almost suspect it maybe it is off angle but I checked it is 2' eave at the ridge and at the wall bandicam 2021-09-02 20-20-40-616.mp4
  21. one question I do have, what elevation do you want at the top plate on the left shed wall? I would start from there and then adjust the room structure, and then the roof plane to match
  22. well there is still something odd going on with the wall framing. I put in a flat ceiling over the room to see, and the wall is still framing too high. i tried to reproduce what I did above, but now cannot. You will probably need to wait for the more experienced people. sorry
  23. if i delete the attic wall on the tall side, it regernerates under the roof. I also moved your baseline to outside of wall, the roof dialog now shows a number now for top plate
  24. for the soffit not flush, i think this is because you have the eave set to build below the sub fascia, and the fascia and sub fascia are the same depth(7-1/4) if I set the sub fascia to 7-1/4 and facia to 9-1/4 i do not see that problem
  25. i moved your attic wall and removed the truss and now it shows properly. my guess is because that wall is 2x6, that was affecting it. normally for me, I have the roof baseline at top of plate, then I lock the roof plane to be that elevation. I notice you are locking the baseline but it is not top of plate from the room structure->ceiling elevation). That might be causing this