SH_Canada

It was more trying to get them to show up by doing different things. This project has an offset peak, but the pitches are the same, so I had to move the ridge. So I auto build the roof, then moved the planes and I did not originally have them exactly together and the frieze board did not show. The picture above was more to show visually they were not connected In hindsight it is actually a bit of a good thing, IF you knew this behaviour, because if you have the roof planes very close but not actually connected, the roofs look ok in the 3d, but the frieze board is missing. So essentially you can "check" your roof planes integrity visually by adding frieze board. if the frieze board shows, you are good, if it does not, you need to fix them I also realized in this post, that I was considering that, when I edited auto generated roofs, I considered them manually drawn. But after pondering this, I think CA is considering manually drawn as maunally drawn roof planes from scratch, and hence why the user manual would indicate the dbx setting apply to manually drawn roof planes. I typically will auto generate roof planes and then edit them to be where they need to be. The roof DBX only allows auto rebuild of roofs if you have have not touched the roof planes. @chopsaw for this: this is what I get when I go to add a molding profiles in the Frieze section in the build roof dbx. Where or how is this filtering and guiding taking place? Nothing shows up for me If I type "frieze" I get three, non of them flat Thanks

is there some trick to getting frieze board to generate? CA help says: Frieze moldings are added to both automatic and manually drawn roof planes when one or more frieze profile is specified in the Build Roof dialog. They can also be added to, removed from, or customized for individual roof planes in the Roof Plane Specification dialog. Automatically generated frieze boards are placed along all exterior walls directly under the eaves. Frieze does not generate along railings; however, if an attic wall is built above a railing, it can generate along that wall. • Frieze moldings are generated whenever the roof is rebuilt. • You can specify whether each profile is applied under eaves, under gable eaves, or under both. You can also use the same profile multiple times and adjust the offsets for each to suit different conditions. See Frieze Panel. if you click on Friexe panel you get: The settings on the Frieze panel allow you to specify one or more frieze molding profiles to generate under the eaves and/or gable overhangs of roof planes. See Frieze Molding. The help also says they work like moldings The settings on this panel are like those on the Moldings panel found in many dialogs in the program. See Moldings Panel. i go there and there is a 1x4 trim shown. But if when I searched for "trim" it returned nothing. What exactly would I search for to get the "1x4 Trim" as shown? (A search for "Stacked" yields no results as well) After searching the forums, I picked molding profile CA-001 that I found someone else using, as a search for "Frieze" or "Smart" or "flat" or "trim" in molding profiles->Add New, did not give me any flat boards. actually "Smart" or "flat" or "trim" yielded no results."frieze" gives 3 non flat profiles How exactly is one supposed to know to search for "CA-001" for flat stock or smart board? Regardless, it still does not show up in the 3d overveiw camera. Any ideas? (nevermind this question, I have to have "auto rebuild roofs" checked for them to be built, then if I adjust the roof planes, it seems to keep them. In other words it appears I must set the frieze boards first when auto building the roof, then once I alter the roof planes the "Auto build" automatically gets unchecked, but my frieze boards are still there). IF i do not have them there when I autobuild roofs, it does not seem to put them on later. Or am I missing something? Is there an easy way to get them put on AFTER the auto build gets disabled (due to manual roof plan change). (Nevermind I found an answer to this question as well, which is to add them for each roof plane, NOT through the roof DBX as the roof dbx) Unless there is another way, it would appear the help statement: Frieze moldings are added to both automatic and manually drawn roof planes when one or more frieze profile is specified in the Build Roof dialog. is not accurate, as it would seem, at least from what I can tell, the roof dbx only applies to automatic drawn roof planes. Or am I missing something? So at the end of all of this, two questions: why can't I search for "trim" and have the 1x4 trim as shown in the CA help show up? and is there a way to get frieze boards added to manual drawn roof planes, by specifying them in the build roof DBX? another observation I made is that if you edit the roof planes such that they no longer connect (for instance at the peak of the gable, the frieze boards disappear, regardless of if they are set on the individual roof plane This behaviour should be documented in the user doc as it appears to be a requirement for the frieze boards to show thanks

can you post plan as X12? I cannot open

I like this approach, shows which dims were actually measured

This is key. I will verify internal measurements to the survey plan, to ensure they are "reasonably close" typically less than 2". I try as much as possible to have verification dimensions from an outside wall, after measuring internal rooms, as a double check. I dim to the stud on plans and leave the room label to the surface, unless requested otherwise. It ensures a couple things get built correctly, framing for a tub,shower, calculations for beams. This requires a little cheating in CA because CA will bump objects to the drywall/finished surface. A purchased 5' shower base is typically 59-1/2 or 59-3/4". So you need to adjust the shower base in CA to be 59 instead of 60 to fit within the drywall. I noticed this when the framing dimension was coming out at 61" instead of 60". As well, I dimension typically at hip level. More often than not, houses are not plumb. I notice kitchen cabinet guys measure at multiple heights to avoid this problem presumably. My own 1970's house has one outside wall off 1" over the 8'

try going up or down a level (storey). you can only see the terrain on the level you created it on

i wondered the same thing and the for first couple times, I then saved the new untitled file as a template again, as I thought maybe it was showing me what it would look like The title is Save as template. If CA is going to create a new plan, the title should be "Save as template & create new plan" of course everyone would be asking for where is the "save as template", but a t least there would be less confusion over the actual function. This is the $5 solution

@joey_martin Are the areas in red below because of the terrain? I have a problem with walkouts in that I cannot get a clean terrain line, there are these "flairs" that show, similar to what you have, and then I have to create a white box over top

what is the red line?

lol, yup we all know it aint so

FWIW, this seems like an economic decision. they want it a certain way, they can make the decision to go to another program if it is that important (or request CA to put it in). You cannot always simply train someone to do better, nor should you if there is another alternative. the goal is typically consistency, if they want a different format to get that consistency, and it is cheaper than training the framer(or redoing work) to go to another program(not saying they will, but saying that is an option), then I think that is their decision, and it may be the best economic one to make in their case. It would be nice if CA took "customer funds" for stuff like this(and maybe they do). CA could quote them to guarantee it is in the next version. If that fee was economic enough then they could choose to stay with CA or not, but it would give them certainty in the decision and give CA a better opportunity to keep them as a customer my two cents

I've tried enough flashy products to know, the devil is in the details. I personally like CA's renderings. My client just sold a remote office complex I drafted a few weeks ago, and gave the credit to the renderings.

bandicam 2021-06-13 09-41-03-038.mp4 doing some further investigation, it appears CA is putting a doorway on the furred wall. By removing "use interior casing" setting in defaults for a "doorway" (recall I had already removed this "interior casing" for the actual door), the perpendicular wall can now be moved down to the actual opening before it removes the doorway from the wall. Attached is a video showing the behaviour with and without the doorway interior casing setting on and off. However in plan view it does not appear that I can actually select the doorway to make the change. It is almost like a combined unit. As such it appears the only way to adjust this is through the default settings, which of course means if you have lots of other doors ways you would have to turn on the interior casing for each, if that is what you desired Posting this for completeness.

You are correct, there are actually two ways, furred wall and define the wall. There is a reason to use furred walls as a general practice in a reno as opposed to a defined wall. The largest reason is "as built". It is rare that the gap between a concrete wall and a stud wall is consistent due to the concrete. The use of a furred wall allows the gap to be easily adjusted (by adjusting the stud wall) to meet the as built measurements. i.e. I can set the foundation wall to be the set dimensions by survey, or by communal wall agreement, and then adjust internal walls to be per measurements. the measurements seem to rarely be too big, so to speak, where I would have to move a foundation wall out, to match an interior measurement. I was quoting a CA technical response inquiry about a different issue when not using furred walls in a basement. Their response was: "In this case I was able to adjust the foundation walls to their proper build by identifying the inner walls that were butted against the Foundation walls as furred walls. I am linking an article on furred walls as well as a training video for creating basements with furred walls for additional reference.https://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-00181/creating-furred-walls.htmlhttps://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/93/creating-basements-with-furred-walls.html The first lists either as options for this type of setup, although it says the latter might be more "effective". I can certainly see for walls where there is a set amount of insulation between the walls and the stud walls is away from the concrete wall that this would be the best choice.

yes, I saved and exited from the dbx. The issue is completely repeatable when I open the plan or move the door and do it again. The other workaround I found was to place a doorway on the stud wall in front of the door (which is what I had done beside the lower door in the plan). If you look real close the doorway does not quite line up (which is really why I do not like to do these types of workarounds, because I'll forget I did it, or move the door and it wont move with it)

well it does this behaviour at less than 3 inches from the outside of the jamb. I can buy 2.25" casing that overlaps the jamb by 1/2", so this leaves me with 1-3/4 that I should be able to have before it cannot work. Although the setting: works, so thank you for this (I'm glad there is a way), I would have expected that because I specified in my door to not use "interior casing", that it would have used, well, no casing. I have noticed before that when bumping, it will bump to the casing for normal walls On a normal wall, by only removing the interior casing on the door and leaving the general defaults without the above setting, I can move the wall right up to the jamb...and past it (see below). So it seems this is only a problem for double walls which are furred. But thanks again for letting me know about the setting

I turned off the "has interior casing" so it would not be the casing. See attached video and plan. The interior wall is of type "furred" per CA's suggestion for this type of setup. The interesting thing is the concrete wall keeps its opening properly. Any ideas how to not have this happen? bandicam 2021-06-06 18-50-10-026.mp4 Jordan new.plan

When I do a site visit, I will attempt to take measurements off of one or two reference outside walls, as dimension creep will occur if you do not.i.e 10'+10'+10' is not actually 30'. Essentially I ensure certain critical measurements are accurate, and then move walls to match. It is never perfectly accurate (typically out an inch or two when I compare reference measurements to addtive measurements, but I also round to the 1/4" or 1/2" most of the time), I will move walls in CA, and might even move the exterior wall, maybe up to 2 inches, but it is rare to move an outside wall as I will match it to the survey (with an assumed finish thickeness, i.e. close enough is within an inch). I do a lot of basement renos, which means I will move the interior 2x4 wall in an inch or 2, so in this respect I am lucky to have this leaway for basements. If it is any more than that sometimes I will ask the homeowner to double check for me I also do the math back to stud as I dimension stud to stud. I can double check the original dimensions by looking at the CA room area as it is to finished wall. I did one a couple months ago, and the dimensions were not adding up, the homeowner ended up peeling back some siding and we found some fiberglass batt, about 1.5" on the outside of the walls. weirdest thing. I was also renoing my parents and found one doorway was actually 5" thick instead of 4.5 (and no it wasnt mud). Bizarre. The only time I have seen outside walls move in CA is if I accidently include them as part of a object selection Even if I have changed from 2x4 to 2x6 I have noticed it correctly sits on the outside of my foundation. I have seen a an odd thing on dimensions where I was expecting it to pick up the stud but it picked up the drywall. Ever since then I've been a little paranoid about dimensions, If I remember the other place the behaviour is interesting it top of stair, does it include the nosing or not. renoing is a game of inches so I can empathize with attempting to get the accuracy correct..I've had to detail more than once where interior room door casings are 1.5 at the inside hinge, but 3.5 everywhere else, in trying to recover 2"

got it to sort of work but without the single and double blocks, just wider blocks. nothing quite like setting the line width to 400. just don't make it green, really really ugly (see below). in the end it is a function of scale width and line weight. offsets set to non default below, but they do not matter

yes same, I think I need to logout from the other computer as you say. too many browsers, too many email addresses (long story, but to get multiple free advertising here, you need multiple email addresses) I don't actually ever print, I send pdf in color, but I know not everyone has color printers. I just thought it was a good way to do it. I'll play around with the custom fill Found some old posts below to use hatchkit although looking at the format it looks unlikely to be able to keep the white space for the "block" and have the grey filled in outside the block, but I'll give it a whirl: "Excellent summary by Joe Carrick cut & paste from the "legacy forum": Fill Patterns are simply text files that can be edited in a simple text editor like Notepad. Chief Architects supplies some standards and several custom patterns that are contained in the "Pattern" folder. Each Pattern is made up of a series of Lines. The format of a Pattern File is as follows: ;; PATTERN FILE NAME.PAT *1-PATTERN_NAME nAngle, xOrigin,yOrigin, xRepeatDelta,yOffset, [nLength,nSpace] "

Wall hatching looks to operate the same as the wall type for the fill parameters. I cant see a way to get it like the image where there is a white block for about six inches and then grey for 2 ft then white 6 inches...repeat. looking at the manual it doesn' t look like there is a setting, or at least not that I can find. I've played around a bit with the height, width offset, does not seem to do what the image has

Thanks, I tried Print2CAD. much better, played around with the settings. got the off angle line to be 4 lines instead of the multitude of lines from the other programs Their editor reminds me of the ACAD days

works for me in X12 as long as I "save active view" while in the cross section

so I tried a couple, including the one above. where they did draw vector lines, they actually chopped up the off 90 deg line I had into a multitude of little lines. All in all, not worth it, It would be better to redraw over the pdf with the PDF in the background

It just needs a screen redraw. Like I mentioned in one of your other threads.... in this case it does not update because the lower level "living Area" presumably has not updated as I had not gone down to that floor (and I dont have the reference display setup as you suggested), this is why I thought it was "expected". I can zoom in, move walls on that main floor level, the lower level sq footage in my text box will not change. If I go down a level and back up, it changes the basement sq footage accordingly. Presumably the go down to the basement fires the macro in the "living area" label, at which point the logic in the macro sees it is level 0 and updates the basement area to the living area What was interesting on the print, is that it executed the macro in the plan, where in that other post I was trying to get the layout macro to execute on Layout. So I think in the print preview, when it shows the basement plan, this little redraw in the print preview window fires the living area macro. It's interesting because the little windows in the print preview does not show the updated areas, but the printed copy does It's good news as it guarantees whenever you print (as long as you include the floor plans for all levels), the area in the text box will be correct. It's a nice failsafe, as I would expect that 99.9% of the time, I would actually be reviewing the basement level (after any outside wall changes) and the label would update anyway. So I think, other than the design 3 storeys and then delete a storey use case, the normal use case would be correct 99.99% of the time