dshall

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.

Video will be up in 30 minutes, it's cooking. Long video, had a hiccup, but by the end I got her done. Here is the vid https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/858-beeohat-bay-roof-videos-by-dsh/

Yep, that is what I thought it might be. It is not what Gene said ( a solution but not the best), it is not Jim's solution, (I think Jim's is the best), but it was my solution, the toughest to build. You must think about how that roof plane is built. -Note that the fascia is parallel (horizontal) to the ground. -Note that the ridge is parallel (horizontal) to the ground. -Now imagine each one of those rafters that will create the roof plane. The top and the bottom of each rafter is the same height above the ground, yet each rafter is longer than the next. Therefore, each rafter has a different slope. Very tough to build a ROOF PLANE with CA to meet this criteria. Glenn could probably do it. The roof plane would probably need to be on an angle.

That could be a roof that can not be built easily in CA. I like Gene's solution, but I do not ;think that is the way it is and the op said there were not the crickets that Gene showed. I like Jim's guess more...... If the op would sketch the roof plan, I am sure somebody can figure it out. The op needs to show a roof plan of hips, valleys and ridge. if it is the way I think it is, (without crickets and a horizontal ridge) the rafters of the angle roof plane do not have a consistent pitch. Tough to build the in CA.

Okay, so Arial looks different on mac than pc, so I am assuming all fonts look a little different on mac and pc....BUT, BUT...... since ChiefBlueprint is CA's own font, does that mean that CB looks the same on both a pc and mac? If that is the case, are there are fonts that would be exactly the same on both machines? Just curious. EDIT: Just reread your post and you say the fonts you ship are the same..... little confused, does that mean the CA Arial font is the same for both platforms? Oh Boy, I think I am getting in too deep, ignorance is......

Heck, I don't know, if you use sherwin Williams I am sure it will be fine.

Here is a tip, create a new material called fascia. Now go into the BUILD ROOF<MATERIALS<FASCIA and change the fascia material to the new material that you just created called fascia. That should take care of the fascia issue. Along the same lines, I have a material called DOOR INT., all interior doors use this material, I can easily change what the DOOR INT. material looks like and it will change all door materials. I do the same with windows, I have a material called WINDOWS 1, I have another called DOOR 1 (front door), another called DOOR 4 (garage door), get the idea? Name the material the same name as what that material is used for, saves a lot of confusion.

I have been lucky with the few clients I have recommended it to. I have never downloaded or messed with the client viewer, so I would be of no help, they are on their own. So when you recommend it to the client, just tell them you do not know how to work it, they will figure it out.

Never seen that, I assume you reopened the camera. SAVE THAT CAMERA, now close the bad view, select camera and reopen, all should be good.

I get that once in awhile. Easy fix is to go to plan view and select the END OF THE CAMERA and put it in the middle of the middle, now it won't fly off for that camera. Create a new camera and it might fly off again. Try resizing your terrain and see if that helps. Another possibility is you have something way off in the distance and CA is trying to include that in the view.

Jeez, is there really somebody more loquacious than DJP, thanks Nick, a new word for my limited vocabulary.

Easy answer, depending on the layer set you want to use, i.e. a 11x17 border or a 24x36 border, this can be determined via a layer set in the layout.... so why anno set? If you want to define & edit the layer set on sheet zero, you can first define the anno set which will define the layer set which will in turn define whether you are using a 11x17 border or a 24x36 border..... ah nuts, you know all this I am sure.