dshall

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.

P, I opened your plan, did a back clip cross section of the front, turned labels on, I was able to select doors and windows. I select a window and change the height or width in elevation view, I get a 4 second freeze and then I can select another window. It appears we are all having different experiences. My only issue is the lag/freeze time between editing a window and I am not sure this is unique to your file, I have probably seen this with my own models.

Many different ways to build it. Try building with no eave and see what you get. Now add the eave on see the configuration. You will get the little legs I have. Without the funny legs I have, imagine how the rafters will intersect the roof porch beam. Many different ways, pick your poison.

Hey P., I don't have that problem either. Must be something with your system.

Quote See, a joist by definition is a beam, but a series of beams. So why can't we define them as being BEARING.

Thanks P., so weird, yesterday I was using that thing without thinking and then this morning I could not find it.

Yesterday I was looking at a dvx whereby I could specify whether I would get double or single rim joists under walls, now I can't find that. Anybody know where I can specify that.? It feels like I am back in the twilight zone.

No, not related, I think he is goofing on me. But it was a serious question. You know in the beam dvx you can specify whether the beam is bearing or not, and if it is bearing and flush, the the joists hanging off of the beam will be auto trimmed to beam. My questions was simply to elicit a reason why a floor joist could not be defined as bearing (and flush) and then the intersecting joists would be trimmed to the joist/beam. As I said, not a big deal, a "beam" will do what I want, but why couldn't a joist? Did CA purposely leave out the option for a joist to NOT BE BEARING and if so why. See, a joist by definition is a beam, but a series of beams. So why can't we define them as being BEARING.

..... the answer my friends is blowing in the wind..... a beam can be a BEARING BEAM whereas a floor joist cannot. Why is that? I suppose it is not a big deal, but why not. If I want to define a floor joist as bearing why can't I? Is there a downside? Are there anymore differences on the behaviors between the two? Another difference would be the layer they would go on, but again why can't a joist be bearing>

In X-6 they did some work on rim joists. I don't know what they did because nothing seems to work for me. Does anybody see an improvement? -I still can't specify I do not want a rim joist under a particular wall (I want a beam) -I still can't specify no rim joists ever, and then specify rim joist under a particular wall Working on a plan right now: -In several instances I have a double rim joist under a wall, I want a single (can't change it) -In several instances I have a single rim joist under a wall, I want a double (can't change it) I just don't understand why I am having to mess with this crap. Didn't the BETA TESTERS send in reports on this and if reports were sent in, would they of fixed this? Just nonsense.

Joe, those are more of a general overview, they do not discuss setting the anon sets up. Not really worth watching unless one already understands how they are initially set up. Ron, I think the best ones to start with are the ones on CHIEFTUTOR.

I think there are some on CHIEFTUTOR (the older ones but I think they still stand the test of time), probably some on the OLD CHIEF SITE (if they are there, they are newer, not sure if they are better), do an advanced search with key words ANNO SET VIDEOS BY DSH, and there might be some on YOUTUBE, don't know about that.

What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Now I will get a bit technical. Forgive me Bill, I am bored, waiting for Lynn to get home withs my Dinner Salad, yep, more rabbit food. I am sure you know this but putting a load on a cantilever actually will help out that center span. So, with the load at the ends of the cantilever, we have actually decreased the moment at the middle of the ceiling joist. I know I know, not worth the trouble to figure out the max's and min's (might have to throw in a bit of calculus her). I think he is almost creating a job built truss. Put a vertical member between the rafter and ceiling joist directly above load bearing wall, nail together with a ply gusset, and we have a cantilevered truss, who would of thunk it? Hey, when is X-7 coming out? Oooh, I wonder what little secrets they are working on this time. Hey CA, give us a taste on what might be in the offing.

Close but no cigar. Your hips should be at angles of deck.