dshall

I gave this a try, and I can not figure out why you can not build a truss. I started my own model and did not have a problem. Sorry, I was not able to figure out what in your model is preventing an attic truss from building.

I have been thinking about your method Gerry. My approach is always minimal amount of cad work and anything I do, if revised, takes very little of my pea size brain to fix. The big downsize of your method, (sans door), is the fact that you still have wall fill where you put the new NICHE SYMBOL. And if the symbol gets moved down 12", it just seems like a pain to fix. I think I still like my method which employs a DOOR or WINDOW PASS THRU, I can put the symbol in the opening and it looks good in plan view since the wall fill does not cover symbol. I understand I have to add a psolid at back for plan view to look good and for 3d to have correct materials. But I do appreciate the vid. I have used the WALL MATERIAL REGION tool very little to date, and the video was a good reminder of it's capabilities. Anyway, I think we should have a designated NICHE TOOL so we can avoid these work arounds.

Very very clever Gerry. Thanks.

I am not sure what that means. Here's a question: Would the IN FROM BASELINE always be 8'? What is determining this distance? Understanding the longer the gable wall, the taller the roof peek, so without adjusting the IN FROM BASELINE distance, the "clipped roof " size changes. It just seems the controlling length should be the distance from gable wall to hip. Nuts, everybody is happy with the way it is, I will stop beating my head against the wall.

Interesting, did you notice where the roof base Lind was located?In fact the IN FROM BASELINE is wrong because if you look closely, it is from eave and not baseline. I understand you can do it auto, I am just surprised that people would determine the geometry by defining that particular distance. It seems more logical to define the distance from gable end wall to the hip, which is where a truss or rafter would be.

Flipping wall works of did already say that. But you are correct. CA should give us the choice.

I'll try if when I get in office tomorrow. Too lazy to try if at home.

Not yet, not sure if that works, wouldn't your shelves now face into wall

Perry, probably over half of what I charge is for dealing with the nonsense we have to thru these days.

And....... That is right up The Great Glenn Woodward's alley. He probably has an answer......... A railing wall, the railing itself is the top half of wall. I do not want to steal his thunder....... Glenn, you around?

4rth way is to build flat roof with ply over and then put the rippers with more ply on top. More plywood but maybe easier to build. I like this method the best because at the last minute you can change how you want to deck to drain. And Ron, Yes, JC's point about a large differential between highest point and lowest point gets to be extreme. I think I like the idea of the lowest point being no lower that 2" from highest point. If this is the goal, a max of 8' at 1/4"per ft means a 2" ht. differential. This way you can avoid scuppers if you want as long as you put in one extra drain that would meet the overflow requirements. I know this might not be this most cost effective approach, but it seems to give the most flexibility. I can't wait to retire. This frickin business somehow has become rocket science out here in California. Ask JC how much his burned out kitchen is costing the insurance company, it will blow your mind. It is such a frickin battle to get permits these days. I go down to the city and look at plans from major architectural firms, and I don't know how they got a permit. Boiler plate details that barely apply to specific conditions. These cities are essentially forcing homeowners to do things without permits because going through the permit process is such a costly exercise. I have neighbors who are redoing their kitchen, poor contractor, has met with these people probably 6 times too many times and we are going to meet again at 3:00 to discuss..... I don't know what. Tough to make a buck these days.

BTW, take a look at this plan. In the plan is JC's symbol and there is also my NICHE IDEA. Nothing is perfect. Question, suppose JC has a wall and he wants one of his bookshelves on one side of the wall and another bookshelf on the other side about 4' down. IOW, how do you control on which side the bookshelf is open to? Recessed Bookcase for Scott 2.plan.zip

Very nice. I think you may have come up with a very good solution for medicine cabs, niches and the like. In fact I think all is well with the exception of having to put in a CAD line in plan for the back of the niche. I dislike have to do any CAD work, therefore I was considering your solution not perfect. EDIT: The back is not perfect, but I think very easily fixed if the symbol is made correctly. Specifically the back of the symbol should have it's own material therefore you can make the back match whatever the wall material is. I realize we may still get lines in a vector view, but the render view should be perfect.

My apologies for participating in the hijack.

Best I can do, I need to add cad line at the back, not perfect.

Post your small plan with the book shelves and I will try..... once I try I might take you up on the bet.

Joe, try adding "Perrys's Magic Dot" to your window symbol. I bet that will give you what you want.

Nice catch P. Yep, I see the dot, but for only one washing machine. It seems as though the rest of the washers and dryers do not have the dot.

....... that is my reply

JC, how would you use what you want to do. If you have it defined as hanging on wall, why the 6" separation and how would you use it?

Okay Doug, so I get this. But how does Joe do what he wants to do and is it possible? Joe, I think this is a bounding box issue. But if I am not mistaken, the bounding boxing can be relocated towards the front and sides, but it is always stuck at the back of the symbol. Trying to wrap my head around this and have not quite figured it out. I do not think it is possible to do what you want UNLESS, you add a very very very small cube, 6" behind your cube, and turn that into a symbol. The purpose of the very small additional cube is so you will not see it in 3d, but it will act as a place holder for you. But if you do what I just suggested, there is no longer a need to offset the origin in the y direction. EDIT: It seems like what we need is a WALL OFFSET DISTANCE, similar to the HEIGHT OFF FLOOR option.

I am not sure if I agree with you. How would Joe do what HE wants. He wants the cube 6" away from wall in both plan and 3d. I wonder if this has anything to do with mt CABINET OUTLETS not appearing correctly in plan and 3d.

This is a great comment. We rarely talk about overlaying an existing elevation over a proposed elevation, but it is a nice option.

JC, I've been doing a few decks lately. Using area drains, trying to limit max. Change in drop to 2", IOW, max 8' run to a drain. Using multiple area drains in lieu of scuppers for overflows. I am finding I am putting the drains I centers of decks vs at perimeter walls. Any comments?

That should not happen and it does not happen to me. It must be something you are doing......... but Buddy, let me tell you, if there is some little glitch in there, and it was not your fault, I would not be surprised. Does it happen every time? Or every other time? Can you not do a SAVE AS at all?