TheKitchenAbode

Learn something everyday thanks. The X key worked perfectly, the alt key seemed a bit different, the pic resized but not always to the bounding box when increasing it.

If believe you can only resize if you save the camera view as a pic(jpg, png), then import into the layout and then you can resize it. I just tried a direct send to layout and on a camera view there is no option to scale.

If memory serves me correctly, Intel integrated chips less than HD4000 will not support CA's Open GL needs. There is no way to update these older HD chips. Time for a new laptop.

Appreciate your input, I'm just trying to understand what's going on. Just downloaded ImDisk, set up a drive in physical memory and assigned my undo folder to it. Have tried three CA plans, the largest being Grandview @ 152 MB. I'm not seeing any discernable difference in undo/redo response time. By any chance is the ramdrive being used for files other than the undo ones?

Completely agree, 1 or 2 seconds is like eternity when it comes to computer response time. As I mention, I'm curious about this, will download the software and give it a try.

You can always go into the undo folder and delete the leftover stuff, not sure why CA does not do this when a plan is closed. Concerning the impact of say 50 undo files, I checked my main C: drive and there is more than 185,000 files on it. Not sure 50 more has any real impact concerning overall read/write performance.

Not saying that there is no improvement, but as in your case I think if you need to knock down the lag by a second or so then this should help to do the trick. If you mathematically access things from a read/write perspective you can conclude that type or improvement. At best, a standard SATA might read/write at about 150 MB/sec, a decent SSD will get you about 300 MB/sec, the best NVME might reach 600 MB/sec and a ram disk would likely do this in a millisecond. However, in all cases a 200 MB CA plan file should read in less than 1.5 seconds. Just suggesting that if one such as the OP stated is experiencing a 30 sec lag when turning off a display layer then there must be something else going on.

My curiosity has been arisen. I have just completed some experimentation concerning this undo. I have a standard SATA hard drive and an Intel Optane M.2 Drive. Using the CA Hillside Contemporary plan I assigned in CA my undo folder to the SATA hard drive, did a number of alterations and undo/redo's. I then assigned the undo folder to my Intel Optane drive and repeated the process. While doing this I monitored disk access, memory and cpu using a reasonably comprehensive monitoring program and also monitored the file activity in the undo folder. In all honesty the difference in response time was hardly detectable even though my Intel Optane is likely more than 50 times faster than my SATA hard drive. When doing an undo or redo I would estimate that it took in most cases 1 second or less, the max I encountered was maybe 2 seconds, the results where the same whether I was making the change in plan view, elevation or a standard 3D view. It also seemed that CPU time was always considerably more than disk access time, if I were to equate this in respect to the 1 second time I would estimate that of the 1 second CPU time represented at least 75% of it. When monitoring the undo folder CA created a file each time I performed an action. For actions such as moving an object, deleting something or changing it's size by dragging CA created a relatively small file, between 200 KB- 1400 KB. If I opened an object DBX and closed it the saved file was 85,000 KB, obviously saving the entire plan. It also saved the entire plan when using something like the material painter. Turning layers on or off also resulted in a full save. As actions where being performed and undo/redo's CA would automatically purge the undo folder. I did not find any difference in individual und/redo times in respect to the total number of files in the undo folder. It appears that CA's undo/redo process is based on a last in first out bases. Total undo/redo time is going to be related to how many levels of undo/redo's one needs to perform. If each undo takes 1 second then if you need to go back 10 levels then that's going to take 10 seconds. Unfortunately there is no means to jump the que and select a past change. My conclusion is that the slowness being encountered seems to be more complex than just read/write times. My sense is that there are significant CPU operations involved in preparing the data for writing and putting the model back together after a read.

The 3D regeneration is good and bad, as it constantly keeps the 3D current then there is no delay when switching between active cameras. Of coarse the drawback is that this may cause some slowdown when one is working primarily in a 2D view. I believe one of the things is that with CA you are really always working in 3D, the plan and 2D elevations are provided as there are many times when this type of view is a more conducive way to layout particular elements.

Whenever I've looked at the undo function my sense has been that the majority of time is taken up by the 3D model rebuild, especially on complicated plans. I have my undo set to 10 levels, in most cases I only need to do 1 or 2 undo's, 50 seems overkill, you can always just call up the backup plan. A Ram Disk might help but this only impacts on the file read/write times. You will also need to be careful sizing a ram disk as this will reduce the available ram for other operations, could force your system to resort to a swap file(superfetch) which will potentially slow down other operations.

Check under CA preferences to make sure CA is using your 1080 TI. Open up the Nvidia control panel and make sure your version of CA has been assigned to your 1080 TI. Go to the Windows power plan and make sure it is set to "High Performance". If it still blanks out the screen then go to CA preferences and reduce the number of cores assigned to Ray Trace say by half and try again. If you are pushing the overclocking then try setting this back to normal and see if it still happens. You could also pull the cables for your other monitors and see if it happens when only one monitor is connected.

It's a tough one to advise on. Only you know how much time and effort it took you to put those together. I've had similar situations to yours and it was very difficult and often impossible to come to an acceptable financial arrangement. What will be an acceptable charge to the other designer is going to be dependent upon what the other designer is charging and how much of that they are willing to share with you. Is the other designer only designing or are they also selling product to the client or receiving commission on any product sales? I worked in the past with a designer who also sold the cabinetry, as such I assisted in the front end design work and then would receive a percent of the commission on the sale. This of course was dependent upon the sale going through, if the client walked then all was lost. There is a lot of time and skill involved in developing accurate detailed plans for kitchens and baths. There is really no room for errors and mistakes, cabinetry is expensive as is installer time. Everything needs to fit properly and it takes considerable effort to make sure those built-in appliances are going to fit precisely into the cabinets. The other issue is if something goes wrong, you make an error, then who's going to pay for the mistake. A custom cabinet for a built-in oven/micro unit could be worth $2,000, it will have to be reordered, the install will be disrupted and someone is going to have to eat it. What I have found over the decades in this business is that everything is great until something goes wrong.

I believe it's because at that distance from the light fixture the cone is very small, not wide enough to get around the fixture. If the offset was say 150mm then the cone would be wide enough and then you would likely see the fixtures shadow on the floor.

When you pulled the fixture outside of the cabinet and still did not get any light. With the offset at 25mm the light source is just above the fixture and with shadows on the light was being blocked by the fixture. When I look at your third pic you can see tiny dots of light just above the fixture. You would have seen the light if shadows was turned off, then the light ignores any materials and just passes through. Setting the light source offset to -25mm places the light source just below the fixtures, now the fixture does not interfere with the light and all should be good.

The reason the lights are not showing in the Ray Trace is due to the light source offset from base being 25mm, this positions the light source in side the cabinet material and if shadows are turned on the light is blocked by the cabinet material. Change the light source offset from base to -25mm and all is ok. Ray Trace

You are likely correct on that one. Most of the 2X4 wood stud systems where tested way back in the 50's & 60's. I don't believe there has been any 2X4 wood walls tested since then, it's a big issue as 2X4's are not what they used to be and it is most likely that those systems retested today with today's 2X4's would fail to meet their stated rating. No one wants to open up that can of worms.

UL in the US and ULC in Canada are the two major testing agencies for determining the fire resistance times. Some building codes will reference some generic assemblies or membrane ratings, these however are derived from testing done through the likes of UL. In commercial just about all fire rated assemblies are specified by their UL or ULC listing. They must be constructed specifically as specified, no substitutions. The listed manufactures are under UL audit programs to ensure their components meet the requirements as they where when the test was conducted.

Great link Mick. Might be UL UC356 http://productspec.ul.com/document.php?id=BXUV.U356

Here's the link to the Gypsum Association Manual. They want $80.00 for it. https://www.bnibooks.com/gypsum/product/gypsum-fire-21st-ebook

If you have access to the UL Listings Handbook you will find all of the UL listed Fire Rated wall assemblies. Another possible source would be the Gypsum Association Manual which contains many fire rated/tested wall and floor assemblies.

The lights provided by Mark or myself are designed to be placed under a cabinet approximately 12" from the wall. The lights are angles about 60 degrees to cast light onto the backsplash. There appears to be no wall in your application so you likely need to change the angle to -90 to cast the light downward. You may also need to adjust the intensity and/or the spread angle to suit your use. Another important consideration is that when you resize a light fixture the actual light source positions to not change accordingly, they remain as per their original set position within the fixture. As such you may need to adjust the light source positions after resizing the fixture. If you post the plan I'll take a look to see what is going on.

I was wondering if you modified the one I posted. Great Job!!!

The ones in Marks plan are wider than the one I posted back in Oct 2017. I think they were provided by Rene. Here is the one I posted. It's a 12" LED under-cabinet light bar. There are three lights, just change the intensity and color to suit. Abode_ LED Strip Light_12 inch.calibz

My problem was related to Windows not recognizing one of my monitors native resolution. If I checked the display settings it was showing a lower resolution as native for a monitor that actually had a higher native resolution. I could not just select the real resolution as it was not even in the drop down list even though it was showing the correct name of my monitor. Weird, but a second reboot did the trick.