SHCanada2

i think it is the text style on the layer, by layerset if you have it set like that. mine are not set like that, but are set to use a specific text style: If you are set per the top bullet, you should be able to change the text style below, between layer sets

You can add shadows for specified days and times. Essentially a show study https://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/5320/sun-angle-and-plan-view-shadows.html?playlist=97 it creates polyline, so I assume you could change the fill to be a semitransparent grey, and get rid of the pline line, and it would be similar?

i tend to interpret birds eye view as not directly on top, but further away. As I question the value of mostly roof...but then again I am asked to do this mostly from a sales perspective, not a technical perspective

I noticed sometimes opening up the dbx for objects is slow and then remains slow, but if I shut down CA and restart it will then speed back up. But in terms of placing objects, I do not see a noticeable slowdown

I've recreated a couple large buildings before from plans or from pictures and measurements, and it does not really take that long if there are not a lot of architectural items on the facades. Its hard to tell from your image, but in my view the time consuming thing might be the balconies. I would guess lower that @PitMan71, I would guess in the 1 to 2 week range

I assume you have the floor plans? I would draw up each building and create symbols for them. The terrain also looks to slope, adding complication. Not sure how long it would take unless you had the actual plans. I would also assume you do not need to do the inside, so it is a matter of how complicated the outside, roof lines, and sloping terrain is. If it was me, I'd try one of the buildings to see how close I could get in a few hours, then you would find out any complications

that fixed it thanks

merci

CA decided to make a cabinet through the wall. Any ideas how to stop it? I cant even select it The bump out is a cantilever. the walls look normal: 18.03.2025_18.50.23_REC.mp4

I would say it is telling the audience it is an approximation, similar to +-. I'm not sure I would characterize it as being dishonest if you did not, as in general the degree of precision is not usually considered dishonest (see my deck example above). Its' like there is this world of unwritten precision that has been around long enough that every one expects it, but it also varies. Heights are to the 1/8" but not always, site plans are to the 1/2" but not always, etc. But what it is saying is you know it is not exact and communicating that to the reader. In cases where there is an expectation of exactness (such as most roof pitches), I think it helps convey it is not. For me, in cases like this I would either omit the roof pitch, and instead show in a section the distance above the floor it hits a wall, or if it is hitting another roof, I would probably put ~3.5:12. But would I put in 3.6:12 if it was 3.6? probably. 3.693245678 as 3.7, probably. At some point if it is close enough, I would not put in the ~. And to be honest, what I considered close enough probably varies by the day I am doing it and the intended audience. IF I knew it was being stick framed and there is no such thing as a framer using a roofing square with 3.6 on it, then I think it would be fair to put a 3.5890 pitch as 3.6, simply because he will not do anything with that information. If it was being trussed, I can almost guarantee you the truss company would call and verify a 3.5890 pitch. They would probably just ask you what is the height of the truss you want.

This is what ~ is for

Polyiso has different advice. From the link above Foil-Faced Polyisocyanurate (Polyiso) Exterior surface may be used as a WRB, with manufacturer approval. Install tape at seams per manufacturer specification. 1. Must use J-Roller on tape with good detailing to eliminate ‘Fish-Mouthing.’

I have my two drives raided for redundancy. But if you backup to an external drive daily, that also limits your loss. potato potahto

My guess is one reason is 3.5 to 12 might put the building over height on the elevations which the city checks for bylaw compliance. Or it needs to be that pitch to meet an existing roof or wall and no one wants to see 16 of on inch . In other words it is understood by everyone that the roofs must meet and this pitch is provided so one can understand what it looks like relative to other roof pitches I think this type of thing is done in a few places. Decks come to mind. If the stud is used as the dimension of a building then if I add a 10ft deck. The overall stud dimension of the building and deck is an extra 3/8 for the sheathing in between the deck and building. But the framer doesn't take off 3/8 and the plans do not show an extra 3/8

There are quite a few questions and answers on this topic. search this forum for device removed. under the search options choose "all words"

if you had them on the layout, you could by setting the layout box to update on demand, and each camera to have 100 passes. Then on layout click on the update all views

This is done occasionally here. I see it as a comment on the floor plans to add the specific header size, and door size for future door. It typically is for a future exterior door for a basement suite

if you watch the whats new in X16 and/or X15 video, I think they show a hip roof truss example

you should open a support ticket. Items in this forum are typically not actioned by CA

beware foam anything on the outside. they are a wood peckers paradise

I notice here, it is a dog's breakfast based on what I have seen. Some do mostly specifications (as opposed to building code) such as types of materials, and if they do something that is above and beyond the building code (ex: class 4 shingles, more insulation...) I notice here the DA just starts to add more things they want on the docs. For instance, details on how the windows are flashed, how the exterior electrical boxes are being vapoured barriered, stating a door as self closing, even though these are all part of the building code. My guess is they get feedback from inspectors on common issues and then force people to call them out on the plans. But it also seems to depend on who you get reviewing the plans

I think it essentially has to be this way, as CA does not "know" that you do not want a roof there as some may want actually want it there. I suppose CA could try and keep track of roofs you delete after the auto build, and not rebuild those same roofs, but then you would still have to delete them, but only once. or it could assume any auto built roof that intersects a manual roof should not be built. I would think the latter would be significant effort as it would need to check the entire roof to see if there is any little portion of a manual roof intersecting it

I was pondering how to do this. The survey is the survey so to speak. any interpolation will be guessing. I was hoping CA's algorithmic guessing plus any tuning would be better than mine. Are you saying just the elevation points will be a nightmare to tune, and I am better off making at least a first pass guess with elevation lines (ensuring the elevation line matches the point in at least the one location and does contradict any another) and tune from there

Some DAs require proposed and existing ASL elevations to be on the site plan. For flat lots this is not that big of a deal, and sometimes requires some math on sloping (ex: 4% driveway slope, would require a calculation of taking the ASL at the sidewalk, and calculating the elevation change over the length of the driveway @4%). On flat lots, I just put in markers and color them different for existing vs proposed (or leave out the existing if I can get away with it), and neither is actually an elevation terrain point It is more of a PIA for walkout lots, or split walkout lots as one has to continually ensure drainage is away from the house. My question is, what are people doing to show the existing condition and the proposed elevation condition. Is the existing condition a separate plan file with just the terrain, and then the proposed is on the proposed building plan, and use a reference display to show both on the same? if so how to you ensure the ASL labels for each point do not overlap? Ideally I would like: 1. be able to show a cross section showing visually how much fill would be needed, and as such required retaining walls 2. on the site plan show something like below, but really this below shows two different point markers at different physical points, where the message to be conveyed is they are the same point (I suppose I could overlap them and angle the text for the proposed to be away from the existing, or just put in angled text for one of them): It just all seems to be a lot of manual work. Any ideas would be appreciated