dshall

Just to goof around, I wonder what would happen if we took his initial post, and using Google Translate, we were to turn that initial post into Russian, and then into German, and then French, back to German, throw in a Japanese translation and then back to English. What do you think it would say? I am with The Curmudgeon, we are here to learn as efficiently as possible, throw in some interpretation requirements and I am out of here, too much time involved.

My day was probably not as long as yours and I do not know what he is asking.

If you look closely, the far mirror reflects the near mirror, but the near mirror does not reflect the far mirror. This is telling me that the near mirror does not have a mirror material on it or the near mirror is one of those mystery objects where a mirror material does not work on it.

I was wondering if this was a special situation when first posted ....... P. and Bill had a good explanation for the issue, but, so I guess you tested their theory and that is not the issue. Post the two different mirrors in a small plan and post. I have experienced a situation where even though the mirror has the correct material.... because it is a solid or a slab or it's a tuesday, or you are wearing your hair down instead of in a bun, the mirror will not reflect.

Dennis, I received some help from headquarters. Do this..... if you find that you have suddenly lost your deck planking, open the room and verify FLOOR UNDER THIS ROOM is checked. I think there is a small bug in the program that will uncheck FLOOR UNDER THIS ROOM under certain circumstances. Not really a big deal if you know to double check that FLOOR UNDER THIS ROOM is checked. I am embarrassed that I had not thought of checking this, but now I know.

This is a very powerful statement and a method I used for awhile. Have gotten away from it recently, but there were some definite advantages to this method and I am not sure if there is a downside........ Assuming foundations are manually built.EDIT: I may not of been clear...... For a slab foundation I was not using FLOOR SUPPLIED ROOM BELOW, yet I still built the mono slab on the level below yet it was not defined as providing floor for room above. So now I am not so sure as to what Bill Emery was referring to.

Bill, don't you need a concrete stem wall between the garage slab and the raised wood floor foundation?

Hey guys, I'm going to Bluesapalooza this weekend, so I will shoot for next weekend. Anybody who wants to listen in is welcome. Glenn, I will email you tomorrow for some good times for you. Maybe afternoon our time which will be ..........errrrrrrr... Tomorrow morning for you, 17 hours ahead I think. I would rather not spend a lot of time modeling a situation, Instead, if we all have some ready built models we can discuss, we should get much more out of the session. Perry, please help with some models with over stack roof framing and examples of where we need better control of eaves and fascias. It would be super if we could reach some kind of a consensus in regards to what structural modeling issues we have. I know we all have issues with stairs, but I want to stay away from that in this workshop.

I do not mean to be a smart a**, but I think there has been some misinformation in this thread, and if there is not any misinformation in this thread, I need to go back to school on this. I will say that I am a bit disappointed in the fact there are some experienced users who do not understand how CA is working...... and if it I who is wrong and they are correct, then it is me who is all screwed up. Some of you guys, including me, are going to the UGM in about a month, we are expected to understand how CA is now working and how we may be able to help CA improve the program. If we go in there and spend our time trying to get us on the same page, this will be a missed opportunity for us. I suggest that we get together for a GTM and discuss issues such as this BEFORE WE GO TO IDAHO. If we can't agree on how to build a model, how can we assist CA. One last thing before I pull my foot out of my mouth....... one of the most important things for me is for CA to be able to build a STRUCTURAL MODEL correctly so I get clear PLAN VIEWS and clear SECTION CUTS. I believe Perry and I are in agreement in some areas that need addressing including ROOF FRAMING and FOUNDATION BUILDING. It would be great if we did have a GTM to identify areas that we can discuss with the CA folks. It will be less confusing to them if we can come in as a block of users who agree on some basic improvements that should be implemented. Let me know if you guys are interested, but as far as I am concerned, this is some pretty basic stuff that does not always work perfectly.

I do not understand the question. If you have watched any of my foundation vids, you will understand what I am talking about.

Okay, so Robert does not have all of the answers. Give up on doing it auto, faster to do it manually. Think of it this way.... build the concrete stem walls for the raised floor and then come back and put in your slab footings...... THAT ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE STEM WALLS. I have found the most success in keeping the two separate. The slab should be defined by it's own footings and not necessarily reliant on the concrete stem walls. Again, I have done countless vids on this type of a thing.

Yeah, check out what Robert is showing.

Larry, you do not have the floor structure defined in many if not all of your rooms. You can fight it or you can learn to define the floor structures. What you are doing in my mind is very typical for CA and I have very few problems with it. I have done many many many videos on foundations and slabs that you might want to review.

I think the reason the model is slow is because of your balusters at the railing. Temporarily change them to simple squares instead of the spiral style.

Holy Kamoly mi amigo, thanks.

.......Or porch and change floor structure........ what is very important here is to take a section and note how the walls frame. Do the walls frame to the upper level or to the stepped down balcony/deck/porch.

Nice call Alan.

Did anybody else take a look at this? Dennis and I did a quick GTM and we are both perplexed.

Dennis, you should send this in. There is definitely some kind of a bug with the deck framing system. I sent you a GTM invite, did not hear back, but if you are available, I can prove it is the program and not you and I who is the problem here.

I do not know how I did it, but I did. I can control the planking direction at will. I do not know what Dennis did wrong if anything.....

Im working on it Dennis, select your decks and turn on auto reframe deck, you will lose the deck, it is not changing the direction of planking that is causing the problem.

Come on Dennis, post the plan.

Try this, open plan and open an overview. Put them side by side so you can see both views on your monitor. Now, resize the terrain perimeter. Take note of when your fences do not behave. There are definitely terrain sizes that will effect how the fences work. I guarantee that in your model I did find a a couple of roads that were 200 meters from the fence that when deleted, the terrain and how the fence relates to the terrain was effected. To repeat, I found roads that were 200 meters from the fence, and whether these roads were in plan, did effect the terrain..... interesting.

Your terrain is very large and you have many elevation points.... this may be a contributing factor to the issue. Attached is a picture where I reduced the size of at the terrain. I understand that this may be not what you want, but it proves that you have things built correctly by CA and your computer may not be able to handle this size model. BTW, thanks for posting the plan, it speeds up the process.

Good stuff, thanks Michael.