SHCanada2

i close both plan and layout and make the copies in windows file explorer. avoids the problem and the "forgot to save before doing a save as" problem.

at $2k for the device, I don't think I will be trying it out anytime soon without some assurances. I think the general problem with any of these interior only devices is what happens when the measurements dont jive from upstairs to the basement. In the sample he gave me, you can see what they do. They ensure the outside overall measurements are identical and then they squeeze the inside. In this case below, by doing so, they not only misaligned the bump out, but they are two different sizes. If I do measurements by hand and they are out, I will assume the difference is in the wall thickness, especially for basements. But my guess is the person "specifies" the wall thickness and the program adds it in, and then when the top floor does not match the bottom floor, they squeeze it somewhere.

https://goiguide.com/floorplans $2k CAD for the camera. looks like $40 to $65 for the floor plan.. I had one of these given to me for a floor plan and it didnt match the survey, but not sure if it was user error or not. My realtor buddy has someone that does a boxy bungalow for $125 and a two storey + basement for $225 using this system. So must be relatively fast to do the measurements and I assume everything else is done for the person after they upload it. He sent me a sample and it looks pretty good although I noticed an outside wall error

thats a better way to plan it, thanks

perfect, that worked, thanks

I tried rebuilding terrain with no luck, there is no foundation below this cantilever. I dont remember if there once was. but is there a way to fix it? I tried selecting the edge in 3d to see if i could bring it in but doesnt seem to select it

can't one just download the sample plan, and see how long the camera Scott was using takes? My RTRT takes a few seconds for my plans...granted my plans are simple but still if one can do the sample plan in the time Scott did it, and one cannot do their own plan in a similar time, then it would point to something in the plan. It seems to me one would confirm the sample plan behaviour,, and if it is the same as Scott, contact tech support on one's own plan

that is what I did on one a few months ago. If I remember I had to manually move the piles

actually they both look the same . , I just didnt try to print to pdf to see if it made a difference. the above is the general preference and I want the building to be greyscale, just not the sky, so me thinks that might not work, but I will try

hmm, this is just the "screen as image" from camera to layout with the camera set to not use color. I suppose maybe it prints with no color background, I can try that. I thought I tried the sunlight set as 0, but let me try again thanks

I believe you can do it both ways. see the video I posted in suggestions, it has the label configured in the layout box, and that is shown on the plan callout, but it is also for a detail, I did not try it direct to an elevation edit: I dont think it will work for elevations as the macro is %linked_view_callout_label% which is not there for an elevation. looks like it only works for user placed callouts. its interesting its not there for elevations, its almost like they did not consider it when they added the %linked_view_callout_label% feature. you might wish to ask for it. I suppose you could put in a user callout and link it to an elevation, but that seems like more trouble than its worth

i posted a suggestion(originally from Joe) to have the x,y location of the layout available in order to auto number (please upvote :)).

any idea how to show it white? I tried changing to white background and it made no difference. My aim is grey scale for everything but the sky which I would like white (for printing on posters) i played around with brightness, exposure, background intensity (even though no bkground is specified). its all various shades of grey thanks

if you watch the CA video, it does not always connect, the author of the video actually goes back and forth a couple times

the engineer uses the framing details here for "tall walls" but i'm with you the framer will frame as he sees fit. I suppose if you had california corners and order less lumber and he built normal corners, "someone" could chastise him for wasting wood. I suppose 24" centres would also be good to "visualize", as most here simply build 16". headers is also another one, headers in the attic for tall gable walls are more energy efficient. I think it would be the GC enforcing it. also perhaps the lumber company picking off some details in estimating. I use some of them to detail a specific condition, but I've never shown all walls. I think it is nice to show for a large wall with lots of windows and different header sizes and king/jack stud configurations. the schedule is nice, but the visual is easier to follow...speaking from my own experience of framing a large wall with different windows

no, there is an existing request in suggestions to be able to specify beam placement, today it will not go beyond 16" (I think) form the end

i've provided the materials list but with the caveat that ii is an estimate only. most of my customers are smaller outfits, they can always return unused lumber. my first attempt was an addition and I had to be careful to exclude the existing wall

i think the callout linking feature is huge. The amount of times I printed then realized i did not update callouts, well it is too high to count. For some of the work I do, this virtually eliminates any layout work. The only thing left is to write the scope of work, address and some other info on the first page. maybe align the layout boxes, but not much else.

is the exterior wall thickness assumed?

Rene's grass looks really good, allowed me to up the background intensity to 250. and yes its freezing here today, frost is entirely possible overnight

changing the ceiling to a texture and keeping the light source with no offset, seems to have worked: Thanks all. something else funky happened, I changed the ceiling texture back to the stock color-bone, which has no texture and now the ceiling is no longer shiny and the bleeding is gone ...go figure

that was going to be my next question if I do not get it working...does someone have one that does. I'll adjust the ceiling definition and see if I can mimick your results in the meantime. what are your settings for light 1 and light 3? You screenshot shows that your light 2 is camera only . does that mean it is being used for RTRT, or not being used? The documentation seems non descriptive (does "regular 3D view" include RTRT?) Select Use in Camera View to turn the selected light source on in regular 3D views only. Select Use in CPU Ray Tracing to turn the selected light source on in CPU Ray Trace views only. Select Use in Both to turn the selected light source on in both camera and CPU Ray Trace views.

they were down to 100 lumens. only at zero does it go away I tried this by changing the distance relative to ceiling, then it became worse I have this, should it be something different? tried moving to center, changing from spot to point. no difference: as part of the core catalog, one would think the settings should be correct, and so perhaps something else, or maybe not...

setting the backdrop intensity to 100 made a big difference. thanks! sky is a little more blue, but grass is better

yeah I noticed the plant thing too and added some 3d trees.. I see the grass colour is different in Mark's too, but much less than my current setup I'll try these couple settings next, thanks