Alaskan_Son

I think nobody is chiming in to help here because the problem appears too wordy, complicated to wrap our heads around, and too complex an issue to troubleshoot without an actual plan file...simply too many variables. Most of us don't want to think that much only to play a guessing game version of whack-a-mole. Anyway, if you were to post a plan, you would likely have a lot more good answers already.

Well $#!+. You are correct, I deleted that extra face using the Delete Surface tool and failed to mention that part. I created it really quick, and then just typed out instructions from memory. That explains some of the confusion. Regarding the conversion to a solid, I just did that out of habit. Historically, Chief has commonly had issues when 2 different types of solids are used with Boolean operations (polyline solids vs solids vs parametric 3D Shapes, etc. It was just a preemptive safety measure. It may not be necessary. Also, in case you were wondering, the reason for the convert to symbol step has to do with the fact I used the Delete Surface tool which as you know is only temporary. Exploding the object and just deleting the extra face might work as well. I think the symbol is a little easier to store and work with than a twisted/distorted face is though.

Damn, I would hate to live in a world like yours where the automatic presumption is an ensuing lawsuit. All that aside. I’m a little perplexed. Are you honestly of the opinion that the code section and successive subsection in question are just repeating the same thing? That sounds a little ridiculous. I’m also curious then why you think they would be using different words the second time around.

Again, you guys must be much better readers than I because I didn’t read any of that, and you must also know how to use all the tools better than me because I can’t seem to get my method to not work. I’ll have to try again when I have more time to waste.

I must really suck at writing and following instructions then because I thought I explained exactly how to create a half dome standing on its side…and I must have just skimmed past the part in the question that said it was supposed to be 1/2” thick glass. I’ll either try harder next time or just skip it altogether.

Either of you care to expand on why my initial solution with half as many faces doesn’t work?

A bunch of ways, but the first that comes to mind is to: Use the Sphere tool to create a large sphere Select that Sphere and click the Convert to 3D Solid tool Create a large rectangular Solid that intersects and covers half of the sphere in plan view and make sure it’s tall enough to completely cover the sphere from top to bottom. Select the Sphere, click the Polyline Subtraction tool, and then click on the rectangular solid. Activate the Delete Surface tool in a 3D view and then click on the unwanted flat circular face to remove it. Select the remaining half dome and click the Convert Selected to Symbol tool.

I agree with Alan, this should just be done with walls and roof planes. Having said that, I would start by exploding your dormer. Then convert the hole in your lower roof plane to a standard polyline. Then select that roof plane, click the polyline subtraction tool, and then click on the polyline that used to be a roof hole.

By the way, if you DO have Auto Deck Framing toggled off, you can also simply break and resize the actual deck framing components themselves.

Do you possibly have Automatically Regenerate Deck Framing toggled off? Because both methods work for me.

Just to be clear, a floor or landing is not required provided that a door does not swing over the stairs. It then stands to reason that if a door does swing over the stairs then a landing is required. That does not however preclude a single 7-3/4" drop-down to the landing for a non-egress door. Egress requirements specifically state that the door cannot swing over the landing. For non egress doors, the wording is changed to state that the door cannot swing over the stairs. The requirements are therefore indeed a little different.

I can't speak to TurboPDF, but I use NitroPro for exactly the types of things you're talking about and it works great.

Yes. I know. My question was rhetorical.

Just FYI, checking that box has the same effect as clicking the Reflect About tool and Reflecting About itself, or using the Transform Replicate dialog and selecting the Reflect option. I personally find the reflect About tool to be the quickest method.

Hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up faster. Seriously though, you’re unlikely to see anything you don’t proactively ask for. By the way, how do you have access to X15 Beta if you’re not a Beta tester?

Remember that X15 is still in Beta testing and is incomplete and if you're beta testing, please make sure to report findings like these so that they can get fixed. I have to disagree. The tool is way better now and at most its only one extra click. Not only do we no longer have to deal with unwanted points generating every time we clicked on roof planes, but we also have much more refined control over what points get generated as well as visual feedback helping us know for sure which edge we're about to select and where the point is going to be generated. I think its a noteworthy improvement myself.

Place this in the Description field in your window Defaults: %automatic_description.sub("Fixed Glass", "Direct Set")% I have some other macros that also switch all the other window types as well (Right Sliding = OX, Left Sliding = XO, Fixed Glass = Direct Set, etc.) so that it can all be done in one place.

If you place the %view_name% macro in that view, I think you should get what you're looking for. The Layout Box Label should show that same information as well though.

Yes. It would require a custom macro though. I offer this type of thing as a paid service. If you're interested, send me a P.M. If there was an easy in-built method I could offer you as a workaround, I would, but I can't think of any.

Might be best to post a simple plan file for this one.

The functionality has been changed a bit. We have a new Place Roof Plane Intersection Point tool in the Edit toolbar. Select the target roof plane, click the tool, and then select the desired edge. In addition to providing more refined control it also provides visual feedback as you float over the various edges.

If its something you find yourself needing, then yes. For sure. I probably won't be asking for it, but I certainly wouldn't mind having it. In the meantime it has to either be done on a plane by plane basis or by using a generic adjustment factor. As a side note, you could potentially automate a more refined adjustment factor by using the roof area along with the overhang area in your calculation...maybe using some other parameters as well. I don't know though. I haven't actually thought it through. Just throwing pencils at the ceiling till one of them sticks.

You can test and see for yourself, but no. Its only counted for horizontal peaks. Yes. You can deal with this pretty easily by just subtracting some length from each plane though with a custom macro.

I think the method posted earlier by @robdyckwas a better solution for many (if not most) situations...

My thoughts would be to install a second double layer of drywall on top of the wall (and overlapping onto the top of the existing double layer ceiling) Either remove and reinstall blocks on top of that or depending on your local requirements, the blocks themselves may even qualify. I remember one large project of ours where 4x blocking was called out at a spot where installing drywall was deemed unreasonable. You could also optionally install a double layer drywall wrap over the top of the blocking as well maybe? I don't know. Just a thought.