Alaskan_Son

To be clear, we have no problem with that one. I checked with my colleague to verify though and the inspector WAS adamant that this one needed to be tempered as well... ...and again, he specifically cited the toilet itself as the source of the hazard. I guess it looks like a little whirlpool bath to him

This job was actually outside of city limits. It was a private inspector and he didn't actually end up writing the items up. He just basically gave a warning. He was pretty insistent though. Like I said, he was actually claiming that the consider the toilet itself a body of water just like a tub, shower, hot tub, or pool. Anyway, it's not so much that I was worried about how to deal with it, I was mostly just curious if anyone else has ever run into the issue. Doesn't look to me like anything has changed in the code and this is the first time I've heard mention of it in all my years. Just making sure I wasn't missing anything.

To be honest, I wasn’t actually there, and there are 2 toilets in the house that could be considered. One of them is within 60” of the shower and the other is not. It’s actually in a totally separate room. I believe it’s the one in the separate room that was the real question.

A client and colleague of mine recently had a meeting with an inspector at one of our jobs who asserted that we needed to be using tempered glass above/behind toilets. Anyone else run into this? Don’t believe I’ve ever heard of this being requested or required before. The IRC is a little cryptic and unclear to a certain extent with its wet room requirements and what constitutes being in the same room (a separate toilet room or toilet alcove for example) and I’d be curious what your experiences and opinions are. In this particular instance though, the inspector was actually calling the toilet itself a body of water. It does make me wonder why he didn’t also call out the window above the kitchen sink.

Looks to me like you know to go into Preferences and set Color Off to Grayscale instead of Black and White.

Seriously, who keeps doing this??! You’re being rude and totally unhelpful. Example...In X12, even if you draw polyline solids in the same view but edit in another view, they get automatically converted to a solid and lose the ability to use polyline boolean operations like you would normally expect. You end up having to use SOLID boolean operations which means the object have to actually be touching and will be affected in 3D instead of only the usual 2D extrusion shape. Also, if someone was to try and help, and then repost the modified plan in X12, it would be a useless waste of everyone’s time if the OP was using X10. Please consider taking the attitude down a couple notches and recognize that Eric and others continue to request current version information for very legitimate and helpful reasons.

You actually both Create AND Set Note Defaults. This is true of all Multiple Saved Defaults. You can’t set your Active Defaults to your Foundation Note Default if you don’t first create that default.

Thanks for the clarification Dermot. I do understand the distinction. Just spoke a little too quickly with my answer. I jus deleted it so as not to confuse matters.

A note default uses a note type much like a wall default uses a wall type.

Sorry, I should’ve clarified… It’s the joist direction arrow that was causing the thickness that did not add up. Without the joist direction arrow change you would still get 2 framing layers but they would have been the expected thickness.

That's really up to you whether you report it or not but I say not. It's actually the joist direction arrow that's causing the problem but I think it's working as designed. By default, that arrow is initially created using the uppermost (3/4") framing layer. When the Depth was changed in the Joist Direction Specification dialog, it automatically adjusted the thickness of the upper joists to suit. It may be behaving unexpectedly, but it was some faulty settings that really caused the problem in the first place. Had you actually wanted a 3/4" thick furring layer, it would have worked just fine had the joist direction arrow not been changed.

It uses the layer set that is set for your Full Camera Defaults.

Your floor structure has 2 layers that are both defined as framing material. Change the subfloor to a non framing material.

For the double wall, the lower wall should have drywall on one side only.

...or you can label them manually with text boxes.

No. Please send in this request. It’s something I’ve asked for myself in the past. It’s not too difficult to accomplish by checking the height at the new location, moving the baseline, and then changing the baseline height. It could be a lot easier and more efficient though. It’s relatively simple to check height any number of ways too. For example, drag the ridge down, copy ridge height and undo. Again, it could be easier though if we were able to simply move baseline.

Drop that symbol back into the plan, rotate it 90 degrees, and just create a new symbol. Use the first one as a 6 x 4, and the second one as a 4 x 6. This basic technique comes in handy when creating 2D Blocks as well.

Instead of selecting "Square", choose a 4x6 profile from the library. You'll probably have to make one yourself though. Only takes a few second though. Drop a 4x6 post into your plan, Convert Selected To Symbol, and add to library as Millwork.

Your terrain is on a layer called "PL", and as Eric said, that layer isn't turned on in those views.

I may be misunderstanding, but I have the same issue with title block text. I use macros in various areas of my title block, and I usually place those macros on page zero. For the actual page title however, I actually place the text box and reposition as necessary on every single page specifically to address the issue you're discussing. I still just use the %layout.title% macro in the text box, I just Copy/Paste Hold Position from one page to the next and center in its own little area of the block... This way the title fits nicely on every page...

You can also explore the Adjust Lights Dialog to set the Maximum Lights or to use a specific Light Set.

Here's a few tips to cover my own tips as well as some of the tips offered by others. Tips on tips on tips.... ...and yes, I failed miserably at squeezing it all into the 5 minutes I was hoping for. It was just a gitter dun as fast as I can thing while I had a few spare minutes. Its disorganized, poorly planned, unedited, uncut, and totally off the cuff with all my messiness and inefficiencies on full display. I think its a keeper.

Its actually pretty easy to do this... Open your roof or ceiling plane, check Pitch In Degrees, and copy that angle. Create an Orthographic Full Overview. Use the 3D>View Direction tools in 3D or the Make Parallel/Perpendicular tool in Plan View to orient the camera so that it is perpendicular with the desired roof or ceiling plane. Open the Camera in Plan View or click the Edit Active View tool in 3D and paste the roof/ceiling plane angle into the Tilt Angle field. Use the Delete Surface tool to delete surfaces until you can see the profile of your ceiling surface. Create a CAD Detail From View Draw the desired molding outline in that CAD Detail using your ceiling plane shape. Cut that closed polyline, paste into a plan view Convert To>Molding Polyline and apply the desired molding Convert Selected To Symbol and using Advanced Options... Rotate the symbol along the appropriate axis (likely the X axis) to the roof/ceiling plane angle Place the object into your plan and reposition in plan view and section view as necessary so it attaches to your ceiling as desired. NOTE: You can also forgo changing the angle of the symbol and use the flush mounted option as Dermot suggested. It has some of its own quirks to contend with though and I find you still need to go through basically the same steps to reposition it in section anyway. It does however stay attached to the ceiling which is a plus if you decide to move your ceiling up or down.

This can actually be done pretty quickly with Chief for quick renderings... 1. Find or create a texture with an appropriate grain pattern that is large enough to cover the door and drawer fronts of your entire unit. 2. Paint your cabinet boxes with the appropriate material and paint the door and drawer fronts with a different material (any material should do, it just needs to be different) 3. Group select the desired cabinets and Convert Selected To Symbol 4. Delete those cabinets (assume this is done in a separate Save As version of the plan) 5. Drop that new symbol into your plan to replace the deleted cabinets 6. Paint the desired material onto the door and drawer fronts 7. Define the material as NOT Stretch To Fit, set the appropriate scale (needs to be large enough to cover the unit), and check Global Symbol Mapping 8. Inspect in 3D and then adjust Horizontal and/or Vertical Offsets(s) as necessary

They are faster, a little easier, and offer near instantaneous feedback. They’re definitely not higher quality though. They simply cannot depict lighting and shadows nearly as realistically as ray traces and there’s nothing even the most advanced user can do to fully remedy those limitations. Control over said lighting and shadows is also a lot more limited in those PBRs. There’s a lot that could be said on this topic, but the most glaring issues to me are the way PBRs basically handle lighting as an aggregate differential, the lack of effective soft shadows and ambient occlusion, the jumpy way it handles reflections depending on the camera angle, and it’s lack of proper reflective glass behavior. Now don’t get me wrong. Ray traces have their issues too, and PBRs certainly have their strengths and can be a totally useful and effective tool. I wouldn’t call them as good or better though.