dshall

..... I bet you don't have a separation at the bottom.

Not sure what the problem is.

Thanks Bill, I think I can almost do what you did.... but.... I can't figure out the geometric structure of the ellipse. I am looking it up on line and I have not quite figured it out. I do not know how you did it. I remember about 42 years ago, on a wednesday, my drafting instructor taught me the geometry, but I think I was busy dodging spitballs to fully grasp what he was talking about. Any hints?

Actually, if you turn on auto roofs, you will get a gambrel roof which is not what Jon wanted. So maybe you started with a gambrel roof, but you then turned of auto roof build and made the roofs curved. Maybe you said that, but it was not clear to me, you did do some manual editing. Maybe the manual editing is responsible for the lower ridge angle not matching the upper fascia angle. Again props, better than anybody else has done.

Very good, however two questions.... 1: if you wanted, could you build manually? 2: Why don't you think the pitch of fascia of upper roof matches the pitch of ridge of the lower roof? Don't you think these should be equal. But props for what you did.

Hey Mark, darn good effort on your part. I wish you would do a vid on your process. Did you get my complaint that I could not set the eave and fascia angles? Nice job.

Marc, I cannot read your file. Did you close the file before you attached?

Here is my frustration. There are 4 variables, 1. ANGLE AT EAVE 2. ANGLE AT RIDGE 3. RADIUS AT ROOF SURFACE 4. FACET ANGLE (I IGNORE THIS, I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO USE IT) It seems like I should be able to define two of the first 3 variables and the other variable will auto correct. It does not work. Why can't I define the ANGLE AT EAVE and the ANGEL AT RIDGE and the RADIUS AT ROOF SURFACE auto corrects? If I could do this I would make Jon Caffee very happy. Okay CA, how would you do what Jon Caffee wants. It should be relatively simple. Sorry Jon, I can't do it. But I would think that 3 curved roof planes will get you what you want if we could control the first 3 variables.

If you understand an ellipse, it is simple 4 arches with different read.... I will see if I have time later

An option, however I think I would put them under the upper cabs (mounted to underside of upper cabs), so I would not see them.

Jon, I took your 3 lane arch model and made the middle roof an arch, (you had it flat). I think this approach is a step closer to what you want. I do not have time to truly figure it out and I am wondering how easy it would be to replicate the profile you want. I would think you could do a cad line following the curve of your roof, and then break that ellipse/oval into 3 segment and from there maybe you can model the three roof planed it requires to build what you want. Nice challenge, if I have time later I will take a stab at it.' The attached model is only me messing around with your 3 plane arch where I made the middle roof arched. bell roof 02 scott 1.plan

This is getting pretty heavy and I am sure most readers are not understanding what we are talking about.... I barely understand what I am talking about. But if you are correct, and the method you are referring to is easier than the MRLS and just as flexible, I am all for it.

Holy Kamoly, I did not know that. Someone was asking the other day whether they should use HD or Chief, here is the answer... get full version so there are no limitations, especially if this is your profession. I apologize Hossier Daddy, I did not know you were using HD and I do not understand the limitations of HD, my bad.

I understood what Mon Cherie understood, but I believe that is a misunderstanding. I think Mick built it more correctly than Gel. Gel has 8' plates, Mick has 9' plates, I think she wants 9' plates with the ability to drop ceiling down to 8'. Diane does not fully understand what she wants and what she is doing.

Very disappointing that you do not understand that you can do manual roofs on separate buildings. I do it all the time.

There is nothing in the plan that I can see. To confirm, do a FULL OVERVIEW, confirm all layers are on, if you do not see anything, the plan is empty.

That's pretty funny, and yes, I too was watching my fortune wither away today. But at least Tiger is in first place.

Have you guys ever heard of the investment guru Ray Lucia and his 3 Buckets of Money. He says you should put your money in 3 separate buckets, The short term bucket for money you may need tomorrow. The mid term bucket for money you need in 6 years and then the long term bucket for money you don't need for 10 years. And these monies are investments where the risk is dependent upon when you may need the money. Glenn Woodward is my short term bucket, if I need a quick answer/solution, Glenn has the answer. Joe Carrick is my midterm bucket, his ideas don't always help me right now, but when the next release of CA comes out, Joe Carrick has his mitts all over the update. Johnny is my long term bucket. It's great to hear what he has to say, but what ever he is talking about will not help me for 10 years, but his input is welcome. Hey, how is that for an analogy, not bad eh?

You say simpler which often means not as powerful. I am not sure how much simple the CA system can be. If CA implements the MMRLS, we can control what layers are turned on for any floor. I am not sure how else I would be able to control what I see on any number of floors. If Vectorworks method is better, maybe CA will take a look at their methodology. But I do know when someone says something is simpler, often times that means less control.

YEP, A,B,C. I will never do a 20 story building. 3-STORY max.

I think you have it covered. To cite an example: If I have a 20 story building, the 14th floor can have multiple ref sets and each ref set will ref a different floor, and this 14th floor can be sent to layout with a multitude of ref sets and each ref set may ref a different floor.

I do not believe this to be so. If I have a 20 story building, and I am using the 19th floor as my floor plan, I can choose to ref floor number 2, or 3 or 4 or 18 or 20. It would be great if I could have a ref set for floor 2, a roof set for floor 3 and each of those floors could have their own unique ref set.

That is a limitation of ref sets. You can only ref one floor at a time. For your case....gag gag gag.... you may have to use cad to show roof planes that cannot be referenced. With a two story home, I can ref anything I want.... in most cases. As soon as I get a third level, there is the potential for limitations on ref sets. Joe, in the past you have commented that to show a roof on a different lever, move it up and down.... I do not like your solution, the reason being, a roof plane needs to STAY ON A PARTICULAR LEVEL because that is the level the framing will show on the framing plan. The future solution will be for CA to allow us to have a MMRLS..... yes, the MULTIPLE MULTIPLE REF LAYER SETS, IOW, the ability to have multiple ref sets for a view sent to layout displaying multiple floors. X3 gave us the MRLS, maybe X9 will give us the MMRLS.

Maybe I am thinking of Cornwall.

Ah Devon, home of the Minack Theatre. Have you been?