GeneDavis

Those that are horizontal in the pic are copy-mirrored from the other side.

When we "draw" rafters in a roof plan, Chief models them in 3D per the specs of the roof plane. The roof plane's position in 3D space is all specified by us, with elevations, pitch, and framing depth (2x10, or such), and we "draw" to place a member in the 2D plan. I cannot get a couple of rafters to model right in 3D. See the pic. One side looks right, the adjoining roof plane has them wrong. The little 2x4 rafter is an overframe, the 2x6 in foreground is not. I tried deleting the roof plane that has them wrong, and copy-reflected the "good" plane, then redrew rafters, but same "wrong" placement for these. What could it be?

We build here with the foamboard atop the footing. Why would one do it otherwise?

Your floor slab structure will have two layers, foam under concrete. It'll show in sections, and for the 3D look, turn it up and look at the bottom side. Blue foam with the CA logo!

Eric is clearly showing he has to edit the string after initial placement, to get the snaps to footings.

COLOR! That did it. Thanks a bunch!

In Eric's pic the pitches are equal and the hips center on corners. Steve's got unequal pitches and irregular hips that are offset from corners. The framer can do either and his rafter calculator will give him all the cutting numbers, but what might he prefer? I'm guessing the irregular.

What you want is tapered edge openings on the inside. It is done with two walls, the inside one with a passthru opening larger than the window opening of the wall it abuts, then the bevel feature is done with a molding, the molding inside the passthru. Check the archives with SEARCH and you will find the specifics, as this has been discussed and solved before.

I am doing all the pattern line checking, etc., to no avail. Gonna have to do the fog masks and get this job done.

And need more explanation on how to control lines at layer level.

Thanks but still no workee. I selected the layout box containing the elevation that came in as plot lines. Changed the edge lines to thickness 1 and color to white, just to go extreme, and got nothing, even after updating view. Images: the asbuilt elevation in the plan file, shown vector view. The layout with the elevation brought in as plot line image, point to point positioned, brought front forward. The spec I did to try to make it a fade.

I have a remodel job in layout and want to show the existing building as if in the fog, with thin light gray lines, and the shadows in light gray. Beginning with the elevation in the asbuilt plan file, I make sure I am in vector view, shadows on, pattern lines off, and do the export to layout using plot lines, checking ON for use edge line defaults, and for use pattern line defaults. The pattern line check is not really needed, I guess, as patterns are OFF. So off it goes and appears on the layout page. I select the view, and go and change the edge lines to something like a line weight 3 and color to a light gray. And get no change. Why no change?

Is there a secret to this? I like the feature, that we can have this second framing layer in a wall, but if I want to do a 3D framing overview, I don't want the rainscreen furring to clutter up the model image. In 3D one can select a piece at a time, or shift-select a handful, and assign to another layer, but it's gonna be tedious doing this all around.

Do I need to get better trained, or is there a gap in the software and I should make a suggestion for a mod? Rainscreen's the new hotness, and Chief stepped up to the plate in X13 and gave us the additional framing layer to handle the furring, but how are you all handling exterior trim? I find that I need to add thickness to the trim to make it look right in 3D. If my furring layer is 3/4 and I am casing with 5/4 stock, I need to make it 1-3/4 thick not 1 inch thick. All's well with my 3D and 2D, but my material list is calling for the wrong thickness, of course. I'd prefer there be a setting for exterior trim that allows one to specify which layer it bears against. No? Is there a hidden setting in 13 I'm missing, or is my workaround a necessity.

Got it! Made a small four side house test plan, built everything to specs, paid attention this time since I was doing it from scratch, wall-wise, not coming into it backwards. Everything worked as expected and I then changed all settings and specs for walls in the remodel file. All is good. Thanks for looking and commenting.

I'm looking in the 3D framing view and the foam is not there. Neither in a section view.

Thanks, Mick. I edited the wall spec for the upper framed wall, and that seemed to make the gap go away, but the pony wall foundation is still glitchy for me. I fiddle with the height (where the walls stack) and some heights make the foam inside go completely away, or partly away, and some settings to the same to the outer layers.

This plan is driving me nuts with the behavior I've caused by my worst practice, I'm sure. It is an addition to an uninsulated summer place built a hundred years ago on a shallow stone foundation. The new addition will get a proper foundation. Rainscreen siding detail for walls so as to be able to get siding to cover concrete stemwall. I cannot figure out how I messed this up. It would not frame as expected, so I did the floor frame manually. The remaining issues I have are as shown in the images. Insulation won't show in 2D or 3D where it is on the upper half of the pony wall foundation. A gap in the exterior layers won't close where the mudsill is. I can just CAD patch to fix this enough to do the con docs, but it annoys me I cannot solve this riddle. Bedroom bath addition no steps (2).zip

No. That is not it.

A mulled unit of any kind, when shown in the window schedule, will not call out the types or sizes of individual units that are joined into one mulled unit. It's up to you to do whatever necessary to ensure the window supplier gets it right. Usually text in the comments can do it. Maybe like this: "Fixed casement 66" w. x 30" h. over fixed casement 33" w. x 30" h. and operable casement 33" w. x 30" h."

Doing a room addition on a 100 year old seasonal camp, with the camp having a barn-like foundation of stones chinked with mortar only 16 inches into the ground. The room addition is to have a frostwall foundation to 4 feet depth, and the walls are rainscreen type so as to be able to continue on over the foundation which sticks above grade about 18 inches. I drew the asbuilt just enough to get the endwall right for where we attach this new build, and did not put a foundation under it until after I built the foundation under the new construction. Trying to frame now and everything is screwed up. It is the first time for me doing this siding-over-foundation. My floor platform wants to frame INSIDE the 2x4 walls, and my mudsill wants to sit flush to the stemwall exterior when I thought I had specified it to sit 1/2" in, to match the wall line. So, because of my bad settings somewhere, my walls want to frame atop the mudsill not atop the platform, and the platform wants to frame INSIDE the walls. What the file shows (attached) is manual floor framing by me. What settings are doing this? Bedroom bath addition no steps.zip

Got a good one? I thought with as many of these as there are, Chief would have given us the tools by now? Unless it's a hidden thing. I never needed one until now. A harpist needs access from her car to the music room, to dolly up the Lyon and Healy harp.

Thanks. Didn't know I had that option for the single dimension. I will do that to increase my training level, after I delete the text patch I did over the numbers.

I am struggling with some imprecise, or rather precise-but-not-imperial, CAD and dimensions. I draw a square in CAD and specify the sides as 9' 6.6006239531". The number comes from me trying to define the foundation for an octagonal porch whose long dimesion is exactly 16'-7 15/16". But that is a digression. Here is the issue. When I throw dimensions on that nine-foot-six-somenting square, the left to right number comes out as 9'-6 9/16" and the vertical one as 9'-6 5/8". Now we all have calculators and know that 9/16 is 0.5625 and 5/8 is 0.625, which means Chief rounded DOWN to get the horizontal dim, and UP to get the vertical, but why the inconsistency?

Using wall coverings to decorate a bath just line Chief did in the Nashville design they used to showcase X13. Did it with shiplap siding under subway tile, and the finished floor build of underlay, mud, and tile makes floor thickness 7/8". A 6" baseboard sits atop floor, and to get the shiplap (6" pattern) to sit full board atop the baseboard, I adjusted the pattern y dimension to get what I needed. Followed through with the subway tile. See the images. I checked for both materials, match pattern to texture. Vector view gives me what I want, but not the 3D "normal view.