dshall

Yes, I understand what you are saying, Rich must of used a workaround of some sort..... this is not a slam dunk using CA's available tools, Hey Rich, how did you do this? To summarize, Rich was able to create a "BEND/ANGLE" in the bottom of the window. In the top of the window it is easy peasy, but in the bottom it is not so easy. Good job Rich.

I did get the vid posted, I think you guys can figure out the limitations that CA has imposed on us.... it's all about not having the OFFSET option for the bottom of window whereas we do have the OFFSET for the top of the window. BTW, lest I be reminded to send this into CA as a suggestion, I did send this in several years ago. If you guys think this is important, maybe you can also send this in as a suggestion.

I guess the easy peasy comment was directed at me, I did post a pic in post #11 showing the dbx I used to get the job done, but if that was not enough info, here is a vid. https://youtu.be/BNV0q6rp6T8 One of the reasons I do fewer videos, it seems to be a crapshoot whether is gets posted

Hi Larry, I remember back in the day, there was a lot of that. I do not think there is so much of that anymore. Was there a particular issue that was not clear to you?

I apologize, I did not look at your picture. In most #8, Rich showed it can be done. In post #11 I showed what cannot be done easily. In post #11 I showed how you can alter a point along the top of the window, BUT YOU CANNOT ALTER A POINT ALONG THE BOTTOM OF THE WINDOW.

Rich did all of that in CA. Easy Peasy.

I should of been clearer with the limitations. Can you build the window on the left but "INVERTED/UPSIDE DOWN". By looking at the dbx, the OFFSET for the bottom corners is missing whereas there is an OFFSET for the top inside corners.

I believe you are correct. You can change the top, but you cannot change the bottom. Why not? I believe it was an oversight by CA. It is a shame, I have reported this before, still no ability to do this. Maybe if more users reported this, it just might be a possibility.

This is the answer

Great idea, thanks DJP, I have now emailed him. And if anybody else can help, that would be great.

Hi Guys, I am looking for a CA model of A GREEN BUILDING that I can pass on to a high school teacher who will use it in his classroom for teaching purposes. Does anybody have a CA model A GREEN BUILDING that they would be willing to share with this High School Teacher? It would be greatly appreciated, thank you.

Nuts, that might be your point, you can rotate the p.l. much easier.... my bad...... yes, a definite advantage of the cad detail method vs the layer method.

This is a great point. However Since we do remodels, we are always shuffling the house location in relation to the site. To make this easier for me, I have an anno/layer set that locks the house and unlocks the site, so once activated, I select all (the property lines and the public roads) and move that stuff in relationship to the house. And if I need to, I CAN ROTATE THE P.L. AND THE STREETS. Taking the opposite approach (moving the house instead of the p.l.) works well also, but if the house needs to be rotated in relation to p.l., we are S.O.L. No system is perfect, we must pick our poison.

Then my question is, why use the cad detail method in lieu of the layer method? I stated the advantage of the layer method, the use of ref sets, but what is the advantage of the cad detail method?

I do not need an answer..... unless you have a specific answer..... I go back to my initial question, what is the difference between the two attic spaces in post 13? Which of the two spaces is a concealed space and what is the definition of a concealed space? Which of the two spaces is a horizontal space and what is the definition of a concealed space?

I think that was the reason I ruled out the cad detail method. I use ref sets for my site plans..... at the very least I want to show my roof eaves.

correct

BTW, years ago when I was doing commercial work, this was very standard... . But I have not seen this requirement for residential work, which is something Perry brought up earlier.... , but I cannot find this in the code book where the requirement is dependent upon whether it is commercial or residential project.

He wants a draft stop every ten lineal feet of mansard attic space.

I do have blocking under mansard walls, so I assume that would be isolating the deck from roof. Let me ask you this, suppose that mansard was tall enough for it to be habitable, I would not need draft stops because.... why. Because it is habitable? That is why I think it is tied into being an ACCESSIBLE ATTIC AREA WITH AN ACCESS HOLE vs being a CONCEALED/NON ACCESSIBLE space. Bottom line, I do not think there is a very clear statement in the code book that addresses this..... I do appreciate the possible reasons you guys have suggested.

That may be it.... the wall is 48" from p.l., the eave is 36" from p.l., I do have an enclosed soffit at eave. The eave is stucco. That just might be it Perry, thanks, the owner is going to question the inspector, I will let you know what we find out.

In this case it is a deck. I am not using open web joists and the attic area is definitely less than 1000 s.f.

Larry, I forgot the reason, but when I was at the UGM, I think it was the last one, this topic came up, and there was a weakness in the CAD DETAIL method. I wish I remembered the reason, but I do remember discussing the two methods with someone, and I reached the conclusion that the LIVE LAYER method was the best for me. Maybe it had to do with the fact you can not use ref sets with the CAD METHOD....nuts, sorry, but I do not recollect the reason.

Michael, why would you say that? Is that a quote from a code book? Post 13 asked what I thought was a very simply question with maybe not an easy answer. Why don't we all say, "I do not understand why the inspector would ask for draft stops in the mansard and not in an attic" Nobody has answered the question in post 13.

Yes, but do you have an answer to my question? We are all citing passages but nobody has answered my question yet.