dshall

I did this a long time ago, and now I forget how to do it. I can change a particular floor assembly for a ROOM by selecting the room and changing the floor assembly (it is no longer a default structure assembly) I can change a particular floor assembly for a FLOOR by selecting the floor in defaults and changing the floor assembly (it is no longer a default structure assembly) but, how do I change the default structure for all floors including any new floor levels I might add. Note in the pic, the floor structure definition thickness is 12-5/8", that is the default, how do I change the?....... I know how to change for this particular floor, but how do I change the default floor assembly for all existing floors and any new floors?

Good stuff Rosco, how long did each raytrace cook for ? Rosco, you used some very nice materials...... I assume you did all this with CA....... it really is amazing what we can do with CA.....those guys at headquarters deserve many kudos.

Hey, I did a series of vids called ANNO SETS FOR DUMMIES, you might want to check them out, do a google search,

With X7 we got the "cross block" for posts...... about time. But what about the auto posts for deck framing? Did we get the cross block for a deck framing post? I know I can select a post and put in a cross block, but that turns off auto deck framing. Thanks.

Great, I am glad you said that because this allows me to make a point...... what would happen if the roof did not auto go to roof? Well, then for every wall we would build, we would have to specify it goes up to roof or is linked to roof or whatever a program like Revit behaves. Seriously, we can question all the nutty behaviors CA has, and I get it that you have to understand the quirkiness. But I bet that Revit, and SU and VW all have their own quirky behaviors too. And if some folks think my CA videos are a bit "blue", I wonder what they would think of my Revit vids? Hey Johnny, see you at 3:00 pst, this could be fun, we are going to have a good group.

Mi Amigo, there are many things that are screwed up with CA, I could find things all day long if I wanted to, but try to dwell on what is good..... CA does not work like the other programs, it works differently. I think the guys at headquarters will eventually get around to the things you want, but right now they are busy handling my special requests..... (I slipped the chief programmer a twenty last year to take care of my needs). You wait for X-8, I think it is going to be good. I am going to the UGM to confirm they are doing some good things.

You are correct unless you go to first floor and uncheck ROOF OVER THIS ROOM.

Do it manually.

No middle floor in CA, easy peasy. no middle floor 1.plan

Yea Johnny, we need someone like you around to teach us what we don't know.

Funny you should ask. I just did a stupid vid seeing if I could somehow help these other folks out in their thinking. I am not sure if the vid is any good, I will post in case someone has nothing better to do. Jay, I am an advocate of the top down building, but when I did the vid, I am not sure I can justify my reasoning. I think it has something to do with if you change the floor height of the second floor does it change the ceiling above or when you change the ceiling height of a first floor room, how does it effect the level of the second floor this effecting the absolute ceiling height of the second floor ceiling which it does. For those that are interested, build a building like the building in the picture. Now set your default floor and ceiling heights. Make sure you stagger the walls at the first and second level. Now experiment with changing individual room floor and ceiling heights and experiment with changing the default floor and ceiling heights. I would bet that after doing this for about 10 minutes, the methodology may start to sink in. And while you do this, try to imagine why CA chose to do it this way, and the problems CA would have if they were to do it the way you think it should be done. Those guys at HQ are pretty sharp, with something like this I bet they spent some time trying to figure out the best way to make this work. One final note, if you think CA screwed up, get over it, I doubt they will change it, just remember there are a lot of us out here that don't have a problem, and I bet with a little work, you won't have a problem with it either.

Maybe at the workshop we can help those that are having issues with this thinking. Honestly, it is second nature to me, I am not sure when it happened, but it did. I was thinking about this in the shower this morning, trying to come up with an argument in CA's favor to justify their logic for this approach. I haven't quite put the reasoning into words, but maybe by Thursday afternoon I will put together the correct words to justify their approach. I bet GW can justify their reasoning.

We call it a California Fill. I came from Texas, and we had these tie-ins there, we never called it a California Tie in back there. I always thought it was funny that we here in California call it a California Tie In or California Fill...... as if we here in California invented this........ hmmmm, we probably did invent this come to think of it.

Yea, that is very very nicely done. I just don't understand how you are so proficient with so many different programs, my hat is off to you. The only programs I am fairly proficient with are CA, WORDS WITH FRIENDS and the program to keep my wife relatively happy.

Bill, you are headed in the right direction, the arrow in your 3d image points to a problem. What do you think that is? It is the drywall on the inside of that wall. Create a new wall type and try putting the exterior finish on both sides of the wall, it should clean up.

I don't remember any of his 3D stuff........ 2D, who cares anymore? I was looking at his floor plans in post 22, interesting floor plans, but we can all imagine how much more powerful it is to show that as a model, especially to the homeowners who cannot visualize the house they are about to spend 3 million dollars on. The 2D stuff is telling only part of the story.

Hey, I know you know your stuff. Believe me, you do some great stuff. But a comment, I do know in the long run CA is faster, and I would not be surprised if CA was faster in the short run...... maybe faster than your 2d stuff. I have heard comments from several users recently who picked up CA, became frustrated, put in on the shelf, and now they are thinking about coming back to it. I say they did not give it enough time. Learning CA is costly, in lost production and in educational costs . All of us who use it everyday can tell you stories about how much it cost us in the beginning. I remember a job I did, structural was rather complicated, I did the architectural in CA and I did the structural on paper. I got lucky, the job went pretty smoothly with minor changes. But imagine if there were some bigger changes what a mess I would of been in? That is when I decided to go all in. The financial rewards were not important, completing the entire job in CA was paramount. I bit the bullet. It is paying off now. It does help that the CA of today is light years ahead of X10 which is the version I started with back in 2005........ I can't wait for X-8, maybe at the UGM they will give us a sneak preview...... they did 6 years ago when I went, I forgot what happened 4 years ago....

Johnny's 2d stuff is very artistic, but if I was a home owner, I would much rather see 3D. Black and white tv or color? Mono or surround sound? Flip phone or a smart phone? Fax or email? At some point, we all had to bite the bullet and spend time to learn CA...... or whatever 3D program turns you on. 2D is so archaic, not even worth talking about anymore.

I think Johnny does some awesome presentation work. Some of the best I have seen. We could all learn something from Johnny, but I want to learn from Johnny using CA as an APP. Johnny, you are so proud of how quickly you do your presentations, but I bet I could match your speed, and I would have a floor plan drawn, sections if I need them etc. If you would only bite the bullet and learn CA, you would be a great resource for the rest of us. You would push and expand the possibilities we have with CA.

I go play golf.

Thanks Joe for the explanation. That is a method I have explored. As stated above, there are issues that arise when you use the third level as the second floor, but definetely a method that works. Depending on the SPECIFIC, I SAID SPECIFIC situation, there are a number of solutions and none of them are perfect, pick your poison. Nobody has come up with the perfect solution, again, this is something we can touch on in workshop and bring it up at the UGM.

Please, lets's not play games and guess at each others method, let's lay it out on the table. I have been through all this stuff a thousand times, if you have something to share, please share.

Are you going to keep the method a secret? If I were to guess, you created that using the floor above, but there really isn't a floor above, you used the used floor above to create the soffit.... no surprise. Let me see if you can do that with an entire second floor above and the framed soffit below.

Good point, in meeting now, but quick scenario, two story house, on first floor in lower left quadrant build a room with invisible walls, build a dropped ceiling soffit in this room, you will see the ceiling but the sides of the soffit will be open. this is the scenario where the walls should not be invisible but you put in a door opening that is the height of the dropped ceiling.

You used the 1/16" wall for the room definition..... why do you need to define the room? If you need to define the room for floor definitions, I get it. If you need the 1/16" wall for the ceiling height definitions, the 1/16"wall is not necessary. I love dealing with these modeling challenges, and that is why in my previous post I alluded to the fact there is not one easy answer to a modeling challenge. Shane, I know that you appreciate the back and forth banter that we go through to solve an issue, thanks.