SH_Canada

I've considered a dedicated sheet label # for details to help solve this. You could do something similar, basically preassign D-# to 3 sheets, where D-1 is for cladding, D-2 is for Roof, D-3 is for structural, etc. I've gone to named pages with a total sheet # to organize. section callouts are to page labels not numbers. so if I copy Electrical to Basement Electrical, the label is still E-# in the page settings, but it will show as E-2 in the index and actual layout page.

35 minutes ago, SNestor said:

If you are going to use auto roofs...you have to start with the lowest pitch. Then, auto build the roof.

Is this documented somewhere that you know of?

This would seem to be a fairly important thing to know, and would explain the behaviour I have seen previously.

My 5 min search in the help does not seem to indicate this

yup that worked, no need for the upper room

thanks

ok thanks, I'll give it a whirl

sooo, it looks like it did not quite work for me. now the cantilever portion which is in the sunroom gets built lower than the rest of the cantilever. If adjust the floor for the invisible second storey room, then CA raises the roof of the sunroom. Did I miss something? I changed the color of the siding on the main level to show what is happening

canttest.plan

thanks, that worked!

@glennw what your opinion on if this is a bug or not?

seems like at a minimum this behaviour, and the workaround, should be documented

here is one with a voice over. note the problem does not occur if the second floor cantilever is outside the sunroom. (i.e. if cant is outside the sunroom, when I change the sunroom ceiling height, the main floor height does not change). Not that it matters for the actual problem, but in case someone is wondering why I am doing this,  I need the room height to be less so the roof does not hit windows on the second floor.  

attached

canttest.plan

I'm trying to add a sunroom to a two storey house. I cannot seem to set the height of the sunroom, without changing the main floor room height. It is repeatable on a test plan. Looks like it is entirely to do with the cantilever on the second floor. If here is no cantilever "inside" the sunroom, everything is fine.

Does anyone know how to get around this?

thanks

elevation from GPS is typically poor accuracy compared to position data from GPS. I have a few GPSs, they never give the same elevation reading twice, normally a variance of 0.5m.

Another way to get better elevation is from a drone.

Our city offers lidar elevation data for purchase, but that is somewhat limited if there is a lot of cover.

geodetic or relative elevations?

might want to download the brekenridge project and watch the videos on it

Part 9 — Appendix A — Division B (bcpublications.ca)

for canadaland

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

thanks all...off to the suggestion board

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

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

12 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Apologies as I did not mean that as a criticism, only an observation

No apology needed, I will take the observations any day of the week. you guys are great. Thanks

17 minutes ago, mLongChief said:

It appears that the second floor room's Floor Structure is different than the default, in that the OSB layer is marked as the framing layer and the Fir Framing layer isn't. Checking the "Default" checkbox (which HumbleChief mentioned) has the Floor Structure match what the defaults are set to, which has the layers swapped for which is marked as Framing.

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.

59 minutes ago, rgardner said:

BTW you have all of your floor heights changed in your model manually instead of using your floor defaults so there are other issues a

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.

1 hour ago, HumbleChief said:

BTW Floor 1 looks a little messed up as well. A 3" concrete slab floor over a crawl space? Not sure that's what you want but maybe? Just a bit strange and probably nothing to do with those weird 5/8" OBS floor joists but maybe worth a look?

 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

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

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

19 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

Also bear in mind that you can ENTER values in a number of different formats provided that you also type in the appropriate unit indicators as well.

as inches are the default you can enter

9'2

and it will treat it as 9'2"

On 9/3/2021 at 3:47 PM, Mark3D said:

My guess is you have turned off one of your snaps and you are drawing of angle, you may have turned off by mistake and forgot

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