dshall

THE JPC/GRAEME Floor Level Workshop Wednesday Aug.24 at 4:00 PM PST...... which is Thursday Aug. 25th at 9:00 AM for the folks down South I will host a workshop via GOTOMEETING discussing FLOOR LEVELS........ (somehow we have to get JPC up to speed). We will be discussing floor levels and how changing the floor level at level 1 can change ceiling heights above etc. This has been an issue with quite a few users. We can also discuss walk-out basement issues.... why put them on level 1 vs level 0. If you are attending, please have a plan ready with questions and issues so that we may discuss. If you have headphones and speaker that would be great... if you don't, somehow it has not been an issue lately..... but better off safe than sorry so go buy some headphones with a mic with a self muting switch. If you are interested, please send me an email at dscotthall@mac.com. If your name is below, I have your email, if your name is not below, I do not have have your email and you need to send it to me (Northriver Jeff & Rob Littleton.) ATTENDEES: dsh, Perry the Slab Man, The Great Glenn Woodward, Larry "The Surfer" Hawes, JPC "He who would be late to his own wedding", JB "The Mad Baehmer" who will help JPC get on line, "New York Greg", Francois (who let a Frenchmen in?), Graeme "I don't work the weekends" Taylor, Richard "The Canuck" Martin, Jon Scussel, Chopsaw, Alan "The funniest man on CA" Lehman, Kurt C., Mark McA, Mon Cherie, Paramount, David Zawadzki, Jeff "Northriver", Moe G., Rich Windsor, Scott H., Sales, The Curmudgeon, 24 (guys who might out.... Alan L., )

Okay guys, there seems to be some interest in this. I will schedule a workshop for a Wednesday at 4:00 PM PST which would be Thursday 9:00 AM for those folks down South, or I will schedule it for a Friday at 4:00 PM PST which would be Saturday 9:00 AM for those folks down South. It is tough finding a time that works for everybody. Thank goodness I am not trying to satisfy any Europeans. Graeme, what works for you?

Good post, thank you.

You know what JPC, I would be interested in hosting a FLOOR ELEVATION workshop if there was enough interest. Some how I seem to get through it.... not to imply that I don't have issues occasionally. The reason I would host it is to see if I can solve what ever issues you or anybody else has. I get it... there is some confusion/irrational CA behaviors, but I cannot quite put my finger on the problem yet. Whhhoooooooaaaaaaaaaa, is this the JPC that never shows up for the workshops?

Not me, I paint exterior walls. I understand that some users have issues, but I have an anti issue cosmic shield surrounding my personal space, so no problems here....... not yet anyway.

Nice job J & J. Good solutions.

Material eyedropper...... I think this will take about 9.43 seconds, Alan's method probably takes 10.68 seconds, I would definitely use my method.

That is the way I thought it worked........ Maybe I am doing something wrong. I can get the footing to do down, but I can't get it to come back up. https://youtu.be/yBUXHxw1_XY

No, that is not what I am looking for. I am looking for the upper floor level to SIT ON STEM WALL, NOT HANG. That is not what you show. You show the upper floor HANGING OFF OF STEM WALL.

Here is a situation that is auto. But wait, I would prefer the upper floor to SIT ON STEM WALL................. as shown, the upper floor HANGS ON STEM WALL. I would like to have an option that the lower floor HANGS ON STEM WALL and the upper floor SITS ON STEM WALL. As it is now, both floors HANG off of the stem wall.

Another great comment.

I hate to admit this, but I did not fully understand this. Thank you Richard for the vid. I agree with Richard, it seems like the bottom of the footing should remain static. If I change the elevation of the floor, why would I want the elevation of the bottom of the footing to change in elevation? I want the bottom of the footing to remain static and defined by the depth of footing relative to whatever floor elevation I have defined for level zero. IOW, the height of the stem wall is defined by the defined floor level of level zero and the level of the floor at level one. This should take precedence over whatever I had defined the stem wall height to be.

Glenn, I think the answer is yes. However, I think it is difficult to control the angle displacement of the spherical backdrop. Go ahead and give a play, look at it and now see if you can rorate the backdrop 90 degrees. With Joe's method, it seems it would be very easy to rotate the cylinder 90 degrees.

Yes, thanks for your time Joe.

You are not losing it, you are not listening. Tech says it is normal behavior, I say it is normal behavior. It is behaving as it is programmed. But what I am saying is, this is not good behavior, I agree with you, it should be changed to how you and I think it should behave.

Graeme, either you or I do not understand his request. If you can do what I am requesting in the previous thread, I wish you would show me how to do it.

They switch to the same layer set.... not good..... I think we should be be able to have different layer sets or anno sets or ref sets for each view we are looking at. I will take it a step further and say we should be able to have level 1 open in three different windows and each window should be able to have a different anno or layer or ref set. IOW, I should be able to see the floor plan for level one, the elec plan for level one and the framing plan for level one open at the same time. I have been requesting this for years, I suppose you were absent when I sent out the memo.

You are correct, I do know this. I wanted to make sure that the OP understood the limitations with auto build roof. I understand that The Great Glenn Woodward does auto roof rebuild. However, on just about every project I work on I have a mixture of rafter sizes and often times I have a mixture of conventional framing and truss framing. With the mixtures I have, auto build roof never works.

I experienced the slow down with a STORAGE BUILDING (many 10'x10' rooms). It was not a difficult model. I agree with Richard, a stripped down model plays havoc with BIM. Somehow, CA must fix this...... instancing? Maybe?

Can you independently specify different rafter depths at each wall and can you independently specify whether it is a truss roof or a conventionally framed roof that is bearing on a particular wall?

That my friend is a very tricky cricket. A few comments.... - If the ridge is parallel to ground, then you probably have 2 different roof pitches for each side of saddle. - If the two roof planes for the saddle are the same pitch, then the ridge is not parallel to ground but is sloped. Nothing wrong with this, just a couple of observations.

Yes, this has been my thinking. However I am starting to using RT for boiler plate note blocks.

Mon Cherie, what a nice post, I too do not understand what Terry is saying. However, upon Terry's suggestion, I will not waste my time answering any questions he may have.

Do you think it is user error or a bug in CA?

Here you go