Joe_Carrick

So what does Irvine want on the plan? Lot Coverage? Nothing at all? Don't we wish all jurisdictions were like that? I do know a few

Diane, Please select the wall and display the "Object Layers" - that will give a better idea of what's wrong.

OK, then you need to edit the Wall Definition and make sure the desired Fill is in that Wall Layer.

Turn on the "Walls, Layers" layer.

If you hide the "Selection Panel" it's much faster viewing the objects and selecting the one you want. For some reason, the "Line Drawing Display" of Library Objects is just very slow.

Yes, it can be done with one Layout and 2 or more Plan Files. Then you will need to segregate the pages to be printed. IMO you will find it's just easier to copy your entire project to another folder and rename/relink. Then make the Plan modifications.

In the interest of simplicity just adding the following would work: percent_FAR (0 -100)% percent_lot_coverage (0 -100)%

Using "Paint" adds extra words to the material finish. Depending on the underlying material and other settings, it can result in a blending of the colors. Using the dbx actually results in a replacement rather than an extra - and as you see in your plan, a potential for unexpected results.

I've been working on a macro package to do exactly that - using the room data combined with some Plines for the actual site areas. These attributes will just make it much easier to control.

Edit that material's properties. Currently the transparency is 12%. ps: I prefer to assign the color in the cabinet dbx rather than using the "Paint" tool. It provides much better results

Steve, Set the # of panels in the Garage Door dbx

Do you really want the upper panel (gable end) to be out past the lower wall? If not, add a Wall Material Region (trim) at the top of the lower wall. This is the way it would normally be built.

OK, I am going to make a suggestion to CA to add room attributes: include_in_FAR percent_FAR include_in_lot_coverage This will allow total flexibility in specifying what should be included or not.

Ditto - I just tried it and the wall framing is showing in the RT. Something is different between what Michael and I are doing - vs what Rich and Chopsaw are doing.

Interesting, I wonder if CA decided to ignore the Wall Framing in order to speed up the Ray Trace.

Scott, It's interesting that you think I haven't thought this out. I have a PLine System that works exactly as you want with total flexibility to include whatever areas you want. I've had this system since X8 was released. The basic difference between my system and Michael's it that you don't have to change any formulas in macros - just what PLines are to be included. OTOH, some users want to use a combination of Rooms and PLines. It's just a matter of using room data for the building. A couple of things I've requested from CA are attributes for rooms include_in_FAR and include_in_Lot_Coverage. That would make it totally flexible. I agree with you that include_in_living_area isn't very useful for FAR but it is useful for Real Estate Building Analysis.

So Far, it appears that most do not include Decks and Balconies - but all other enclosed above grade rooms are included. More votes are needed to get a realistic set of data. Please vote if you haven't already.

I would normally consider the Basement only if it were Habitable Space - aka "Living Area" - or could be converted in the future. It's probably something most building departments would want to count just based on the future possibility. I will add to the POLL.

I've found that different jurisdictions require different areas to be included in the Floor Area for the FAR calculation. I'm trying to put together a set that would cover as many cases as possible. Please respond to the Poll indicating what areas your local(s) require. Thanks.

Most likely, the X9 Beta has been replaced by the X9 final release. Check the version number. It should be : 19.1.0.47x64

Here's my version of Object Properties. It works much better IMO. _Object Properties.json

Marc, Replace all instances in your macros of owner.top_elevation with (owner.header_elevation-owner.rough_opening_top) The problem is that X9 fails to initialize the top_elevation and bottom_elevation attributes. I reported this to Brian at CA and he acknowledged the problem. It's in their court to fix it but in the meantime, using the above alternative solves the problem.

I received a notice from Brian at CA that he could reproduce the error and logged the issue.

Did you contact Chief Tech Support?

Ed, Have you updated the Library Catalogs since the final X9 release?