dshall

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.

The more we understand the program, the more we understand there is not a simple answer to what can be perceived to be a simple question. The initial question as to how to deal with different ceiling elevations is predicated on many different parameters...... and if you think I just said a bunch of gobbledy goop without really saying anything, I am inclined to agree.

In regards to this: - I think Shane missed the boat completely, in fact I am not even sure why he needs the 1/16"wall to build what he built. - I believe Jon is correct in regards to Perry's solution, which is the method I use (an opening in a wall) I use the Perry solution all the time in this situation which is a model whereby the ceiling is a DROPPED CEILING/SOFFIT under the floor above which results in an OPEN END AT THE END OF THE DROPPED CEILING SOFFIT. - I am glad Glenn posted a video, this is what I expected Glenn was talking about, I do not think Glenn and Perry's situation is the same....... with Glenn's #1 video solution, I think that is the way I would build it, The Glenn #2 video solution scenario is more common for me, but I am not sure I would necessarily use his solution. This is a great modeling challenge we can discuss at the Thursday Workshop that I posted in the Chat Room. And if Vista Larry were to attend, this model scenario could be used to help him understand how to modify floor/ceiling elevations after the engineer required 14"deep joists in lieu of 12" deep joists. I have saved this plan, maybe we can open the workshop on Thursday discussing these scenarios. And please, for all of you that are attending, please have models ready that we can discuss in regards to building models with the structural in mind. This workshop should include how to deal with differing platform heights, modeling mono slabs, mono slabs adjacent to raised floor assemblies and dealing with roof framing, in particular, overstack roof scenarios/truss bases and dealing with fascias..... Perry knows what I am talking about. So bring your funky and unique models so we can discuss. One of the purposes of this workshop is to gather ammunition to discuss with the CA programmers at the next UGM.

I wish both Glenn and Perry were clearer. I think I know where Perry is going, but a short vid would be much clearer, and I would love to see a short vid from Glenn because I barely understand the tool he is,talking of.

So funny, at one time you signed on as Jonathank, and I always read it as Jona Thank........ Michael Crump signed on as MCRUMP, and I always read that as McCrump....... from now until eternity he will be Mr. McCrump to me.

Steve, I think that is the vid I was thinking of. I thought I did a vid using cabs also, maybe not.