para-CAD

Members
  • Posts

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

42 Excellent

2 Followers

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Kingston, WA

Recent Profile Visitors

1415 profile views
  1. Everywhere I used to frame (except for Western Canada) was this: Pre-cut Studs 92 5/8 104 5/8 116 5/8 - Add (3) plates (2 top and 1 bottom, you get: 8’-1 1/8” 9’-1 1/8” 10’-1 1/8” That covers your standard wall heights. The majority of Joists can be lumber, I-joist or trusses: Lumber: (PT is usually a bit thicker) 2x10 = 9.25” 2x12 = 11.25” I-Joist 9.5” 11.875” 14” 16” Floor trusses Anything over 18” mostly (24”) My typical design here is 9’ main floor (9’-1 1/8”), 8’ second floor (8’-1 1/8”). In Texas, the big homes I framed were 10’ main (10’-1 1/8”) and 9’ upper (9’-1 1/8”) mostly. Remember that the taller you go with wall heights and floor systems, the longer you will need for your stairs. Best thing about tall walls is tall (8’) doors and taller window options….both get $$$ as you deviate from the normal plain jane.
  2. I exported a 12 page plan to tiff 100% zoom images. File size increased from 40MB to 65MB I wasn't completely sure that the images were still to scale. I reloaded the image files back into Adobe Acrobat and exported as a one-layer per sheet PDF. Now the sheets are unedittable.........except when I use OCR and recognize text. As far as the counties I work with go...they all claim that they are using PDF comparison tools to check when I make the changes I am mandated by them to make. The even specify that I am NOT to change the file name (so no revision tracking on my submission file) or it throws off the reviewing software........... And what's with the search feature..........I type in flatten PDF.....flatten+PDF........ nada. Whats the secret to get good results? Thanks for posting the 2018 link!!!
  3. What is the best solution that anyone has found to be able to quickly FLATTEN a PDF from chief architect? I don't see the option to export or print to PDF and have the PDF be flattened inside chief architect. Most of the jurisdictions I deal with are requiring the submission of PDFs to be flattened, as in, all the layers combined into one. I have a subscription to Adobe Acrobat Pro DC, thinking that the King of PDF would make this easy, it does not. There are some online sources that will flatten a PDF, but they have file size and number of use limitations on their free sides. What is the best solution that anyone has found to be able to quickly FLATTEN a PDF from chief architect? I tried to search the site and the number one return was an MEP comment from 2015 that didn't address this at all. I know I can't be the only one dealing with having to flatten PDFs. Thanks for any help.
  4. I've been using it for a week. I like the refinements.
  5. Why do people buy a Mercedes AMG and not a Toyota Tercel?
  6. I do much more on a computer than just CA. Adobe is sometimes demanding. Video encoding is time sucking. I'm hoping to cover the more cores requirement and also the more memory needs. It's only money, right?. I drive a paid off older truck so I'm not saddled with too many other debts right now. I'll keep this thread in the loop when I finally pull the trigger.
  7. I’m working with Puget Systems to build a new beast. I too try to rotate about every 5 years. I’m saving up to go really big (because the kid in me wants to just once in life) I tell myself it’s only a couple jobs and paid for, so after the new fence and landscaping, this is my next target. Maybe by fall.
  8. YES!!!! Ding Ding Ding I have no idea how I turned that on. This is the first time I'm trying to create details in CA instead of AutoCAD and I was losing hope that I could go 100% CA. Thanks much.
  9. X12 I placed a Simpson LUC210(Z) into a plan as part of creating a specific detail, and the hanger imports with all kinds of extra lines all over it. They are NOT selectable, and the only fix I found so far is to create a CAD detail, and then I could manually delete them. Is there a setting I have turned on that is creating this issue? The same condition occurs when I drew circles to represent the cross-section of rebar......unselectable target reticles appear and can not be removed unless turned into a CAD detail. I do NOT need or want these lines, so I hope there is a setting I can turn off. I made a video of what I'm seeing.
  10. A was a framer for a couple of decades. The dimensioned plans I hated were: - inside of finished wall to inside of finished wall (as in 4 1/2" thick 2x4 wall) I would have to account for GWB. - walls that were called out at 4" thick. I only remember a couple like this.....not sure why they did this. - walls dimensioned to the center. Very odd to me. I like beams centered sometimes, but not walls. My favorite: "Over-to-it" dimensions. I can pull my tape one time and catch many walls in that one pull. Some framing plans were really good that way....helps to locate the lines exactly where I need them without me having to add or take away some amount to find the framing edge bent over all day in the hot sun or cold wet rain. (Not the ideal time to be having to figure out such things)
  11. For double walls, I make a copy of a single wall that is close in type and rename it ___ - DBL WALL. Then I add all the specific wall info and when I choose it, it displays as 2 walls (like a party wall between to units of a townhome) I assume CA is treating this as one fat wall, but it generates to the final plan visually correct.
  12. resize it in autocad I used the scale at the bottom. It's drawn weird on purpose.....many of the called lengths are close but not precise. (to scale 1 to 1) Puckett Drive Siteplan.dwg
  13. so the only problem is that the rails are locked to the platform size and stringer. I can get it close for 2D plans, but 3D model looks wrong unless I drop the top stringer
  14. I'm having trouble building stairs in CA the way I build them in reality. Is there an easy way to set the top tread flush with the upper floor and not dropped one step? Thanks for any help. Page 33 has the image of what I'm talking about.