dshall

0" does not equal finished floor, 0" = ground floor elevations. Downside to have an additional floor is none. Upside to having an additional floor is you can have WALLS DEFINED AS ROOM DEFINITION, IOW, you can have a ROOM above the floor. You can NEVER have a ROOM on the attic level. There are times when I want a ROOM above first floor. Try to put a ROOM on ATTIC LEVEL, you can not have a ROOM on the attic level.

Some do not (ledgestone?) but culture stone should.

Here is the vid link for you Ron. https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/961-rons-stacked-stairs-in-3-story-videos-by-ssh/

The problem with working with a symbol such as this, if you are dealing with any angled walls in the plan.... you are SOL.

There are work arounds and then there are workarounds. Those knuckleheads at CA have not figured everything out yet, until they do, many of us have found methods to use the tools that CA provides that allows us to do what we need to do. Is this a workaround? Maybe, but dog gone it, at least CA gives us the tools to carry out what we want to do. Embrace the workaround until CA figures out every possible scenario that may arise.

Don't get me started on this. Okay, you got me started. Been asking for this for 4 years. We should be able to toggle back and forth defining the topo elevations either with respect to the f.f. Or with respect to sea level. I just did a job where I was doing mental mathematical gymnastics relating retaining wall heights relative to f.f. But having to work off of sea level numbers. Seriously CA, there should be some simple subroutine you can throw into the program that would allow us the option.

I don't use VIEW LABEL, I use LAYOUT BOX LABEL, and I use SHEET LABEL. I do not know how you use those labels, I know how I use them and I am not sure I can simplify it anymore than it is. Sometimes the SHEET LABEL and the LAYOUT BOX label will need to be edited because of the system I use. I suppose there may be a method whereby I would not need to edit them, but I would be giving something up. I just did the SAM VS TEMPLATE video that illustrates how I use the two particular labels. I do not want to explain why I think they occasionally they need to be edited, I live with it, no big deal, if someone has figured out a way to never edit the LAYOUT BOX LABELS and the SHEET LABELS, all the more power to them. (it has to do with the number of floors that are in the plan).

Ditto ditto

Listen to Perry, he knows what he is talking about.

And do yourself a HUGE HUGE HUGE favor, go to 3D<3D VIEW DEFAULTS<OPTIONS and check the AUTO REBUILD WALLS/FLOORS/CEILINGS, this will auto rebuild the structure every time you make a change so if you look at it in d you will see the changes take effect immediately without remembering to have to hit the F12 key.

What is the dsh law? Yes, the dsh law, if you have a one story house, have two floors, if you have a two story house, have three floors. In your case you have a one story house, add that second floor, put a new floor above your pantry, make the walls invisible, now you have the pot/shelf blah bah..... whatever you call it, above the pantry.

Had an appointment, yeah they teed off, make the walls at floor above pantry invisible, (normal walls).

Build floor above pantry.

You know what, I can deal with both, niches a little trickier, but still very doable, maybe a 30 second operation. I think there are probably 3 good programs out there that can do what you want. CA, SP and REVIT. If you are asking which program to use, REVIT is probably too much program for you. Now you are down to choosing between SP and CA........ SP users will swear by SP, CA users will swear by CA, so how do you choose? Depending on whether it is an odd year or an even year, CA or SP has the upper hand. I would base my decision on which program has a more active help site. You will never know any program within 3 years, guaranteed. You will constantly be asking questions. You will constantly being learning whatever program you are using. There are guys on this site who I have been following for the last 7 plus years, sharing there knowledge and experiences and they are still learning. So check out the SP talk forum and check out the CA talk forum. There is nothing magical about any of the programs, all we want to do is to be productive and make money. Which program will do that for you? I would choose the program with the most active talk forum.

Nothing you are showing me in the pix would throw me for a loop.

We do a lot of stucco arches out here too. I do not use solids to create the arches. I use walls with arched openings. Depending on the situation, there are several different methods to get what I want. I HATE CAD, so, I do very little if any CAD to get the correct look in plan. I do not know if SP does a better job.

Mike, take Glenn up on his offer, ain't nobody better than Glenn.

Okay, so how did you do it? I think I would of tried an arched window, give it some vertical mullions spaces 2" oc and made the glass material an OPENING, NO MATERIAL material...... I think that would work.

If you do not have plan in layout already, a combo of Jim's Method and KT's method is probably the best. STEP 1: send plan to sheet 3 of layout, go to sheet 3 of layout, select plan, make copy in place (Jim's part), STEP 2: Select the LAYOUT BOX, open dvx, and go to the box where you can specify the page number for the layout box and the copy will move to that page, (KT's part). Repeat, stirring occasionally, let rest and then serve to the printer.

This is a poll:

Why reinvent the wheel. Check this out from the Great David Michael. http://www.chieftutor.com/roof/chad.html

Very nice Jim, thanks for that. I think you and I are on the same page with essentially the same result, The difference between your method and my method is very minor. Because the two angled roofs have a different pitch, this result is either a different eave overhang, or a different roof baseline height. My method results in a variation in the eave overhang, (about a 2-1/2" variation in the eave overhang). You method results in a variation in the roof baseline height for the angled roofs, (very minor but it is there). Also I think your valleys and hip for the angled roofs will not meet exactly at the the angled intersection of the top plates. again a very minor variation. I would think my method might be easier to build in the field (maybe), but I would have to live with the fact that the eaves are slightly different. Out here with the way are eaves are (sans fancy eaves and friezes), it is not a problem. I think where you guys are you deal with a lot more fancy eaves and friezes so it may be more of an issue. So pick your poison.

How about this, save plan as junk, do a CUT TO CAD, or whatever that is called, now copy the pertinent lines, open original plan and paste in place.

I hate to be a kill joy, but you did not watch close enough. Some of your rafters and a couple of valley rafters will have extra deep bird mouth. . Build able as shown but I bet they did not build it like that.

Interesting, I wonder what would happen if you turned EDIT PLINE PARTS on. There must be a way to convert a spline into something useful. I bet Glenn knows. There must be a way to deconstruct a spline.