SHCanada2

calgary here. I do mostly basements, secondary suites, backyard suites, garages. and of course, decks

that is interesting, it is a bit of a one shot. If I do an auto exterior, then open up the dimensions to the layer tab and click "default" (it is originally unchecked), it will move the layer to Dimensions, overall". but if you just click OK and then open it back up, the default is now checked and it is using the layer of the active defaults. I do not actually see anywhere to configure it to use "Dimensions, overall" as a default, where before in X12 you could configure the layer for Automatic dimensions. Did I miss it? or maybe that is why you are suggesting not to use it?

I think your best bet might be to set up 2 other dimension sets with different layers and add "Active dimensions Defaults control" to your toolbar. You can then select prior to drawing dimensions. The SPV will consider this a change to the SPV, so you just have to be careful not to save

That is what I found Not quite, they are both being created on the configured, single layer in the active default set. I do not use the Dimensions, Automatic. I configure mine all to be specific. i.e. My SPVs have a default set configured to their own dimension layer. i.e. Roof SPV has a 3/16" Roof default set which has a 3/16" dimension set configured to "Dimensions Roof" layer So I was pleasantly surprised to see the auto dimensions show up on the layer for which I am viewing my SPV But from what I can tell, the manual dimensions also get created on the default set's layer. But how the manual dimensions get assigned a layer looks like the same behaviour as in X12. For me to get a manual dimension on "Dimensions, manual" in X12, I would have to change the defaults to the CA default set (3/16" Default set), as it has it on layer "Dimensions, Manual". In X12 to get the automatic dims on a layer set other than automatic, I'd have to go into the defaults and constantly change them for every view. PITA The change in behaviour is that the auto dims are now on the same active default layer as the manual dims I suppose now to get them on different layers, you would have to select a different default set prior to dong manual dimensions. or select a different set prior to doing automatic dimensions.... from what I can tell..(or draw them and then select them and change the layer) Personally I prefer the way it is now. For me if I want things on the Dimensions, Manual, I would have to switch to 3/16" Default set...but that is a rare day. BUt I can certainly see the use case, as I have had thought before how can I create dimensions on this SPV just for me to check dimensions, such as space between things, but I want to turn off in the final plans, as clients often ask "what is the distance there". Today I draw them and then delete them later, not ideal, in case I have to check later. I should probably be using the 3/16" default and then turn the "dimensions, Manual" layer on and off...or just create my own named temporary dim set

there was an railing on outside of deck put in the tips and tricks a few months ago

from what I can tell it does in the given circumstance as one way to solve the problem. see the video above as I show it first with the normal wall and then the only thing I change is to make it invisible. I think the deal is that with my lower wall being close to the landing/stairs, but not actually butted to the landing or stairs, this weird landing moving behaviour happens. I can prevent that by changing the wall to invisible. I suspect I can also prevent it by moving the wall further away from the stairs. I will try tommorow It's very repeatable, I did it probably 15 times including moving the landing to be butted and not butted to the wall So does anyone know why, when I move the stairs into the corner, I can move it right through the corner wall. Same with the toilet and vanity, it's like the bumping to the wall is not working on this level(it works on the upper level)? The walls are not furred. weird

one way is when you send the elevation to layout, do not select color fill, click on plot lines only

that explains why I could not get my p2p to snap on my 3'10 footing above. seems like a bit of a bug to me, or at least it should be documented as such. I will log it with CA

but you have to memorize and or remember more numbers as most standards were written in imperial. Personally I hate metric because you have to memorize all the conversions. 4' setback, 1.2m, 27" appliance width. is it 0.69m or is it 0.686 or 0.6858. 2x4 is it 38x80 or 38.1x88.9. I can never figure out who decides the number of decimal places. If I have to do metric, such as surveys, I do it in both

CA replied that I should be using "furred walls", as they do not create a room. Putting their answer here for completeness in case anyone else has this issue" "In this case I was able to adjust the foundation walls to their proper build by identifying the inner walls that were butted against the Foundation walls as furred walls. I am linking an article on furred walls as well as a training video for creating basements with furred walls for additional reference. https://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-00181/creating-furred-walls.html https://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/93/creating-basements-with-furred-walls.html "

I'm doing some modifications for a commercial space, and the existing plans are below. I thought what they did with the wall fill patterns for the different wall types was quite good from a black and white readability point of view. see below I've created wall types with different fill patterns in CA, and with different colors, but thought the way they did this was very clear (instead of zooming to see the different fill patterns I created in CA). When I do it in CA it is the continual hatching, and to tell the difference between 4 different wall types takes a discerning eye in black and white Maybe a custom fill pattern? not sure how CA would know to fill in the proper color between each. maybe solid blocks of white for the fill with black between for the double ones below dont look too close at the image. The legend does not actually fully match, you have to correlate the label thanks

this is key, as by default they go on layer Dimensions, Manual. If you do not want to continually change the layer set of your manual dimensions after you place them, you should create a different default(aka annotation) set For me, all dimensions drawn on the foundation are in a SPV called Foundation with a default set called 3/16" Foundation Plan Set. This 3/16" Foundation Plan Set then has a dimensions default set called 3/16" Scale Dimension Foundation. This dimension set, is then set to be on layer "Dimensions, Foundation Plan". And then the layerset associated with the SPV is Foundation Set print, and it has this layer "Dimensions, Foundation Plan" turned on. you could duplicate this to do what you want. I think out of the box there is a Electrical default set. You could create a plumbing set from that and then create a new layer called Dimensions, Plumbing and put the dimensions on it. Alternatively, you can choose not to associate the default set with the SPV, and select it from the "Active Default Set Control". For instance if you do not want to create a foundation SPV, you could just change the default set back and forth. I spent more than a few hours thinking I could just use Dimensions, manual between sets, and went a little stir crazy. Then went to dimensions per SPV

This is what I do, and then adjust scale to match what I will send to layout I tried this 0,0 marker with the drawing sheet being shown. if I change the scale of the drawing sheet to match what I will send to layout, the marker stays outside the new "smaller" sheet9it was on the bottom left corner for the larger sheet). i.e. the 0,0 marker for a 1/4" scale sheet does not move to the bottom corner of that same sheet once I change it to 3/8". My guess is I should move the new sized sheet down to that marker so the send to layout shows in the right place

posting the plan may help

reminds me of this....: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na47wMFfQCo :o)

I mistyped in the post above I was looking for $ga but I did not check the macros...interestingly it is not actually in a macro (which is where I looked originally, macro management). I just tried and sure enough if you check macros it finds it. Thanks! some other tidbits in case others find this post...from the user doc: Find/Replace Text and Spell Check locate text in Rich Text, Text, Callouts, Markers, CAD blocks, schedule titles and headings, and custom labels for objects and rooms. They do not locate text in automatic object labels, default room labels, suppressed labels, the Materials List, or in schedules, however.

I'm pondering if my workflow is the best way. I just finished doing a deck plan and new door for someone. This requires an elevation for the City to accept the plans for a building permit. Same rule applies for any reno which involves a change to an outside wall. a plot plan showing the deck is also required. So for the plot plan I take the surveyors plan provided by the home owner and draw the outline on it, to scale, by scaling the pdf properly. All good. This time around I decided to overlay the floor plan (cropped) on to the surveyor plan. 'This avoids any manual errors, but does not look that pretty as the railings are shown wider than the typical single line on surveyor plans. We'll see if the city accepts it. For the elevation, instead of drafting the entire house, this homeowner had the original drawings, so I figured I could overlay the CA elevation onto it. Good in theory, until the grade line on the elevation was off by 6"(found this out at the end). This client wanted the stairs to go beside the P/L line within the setback, so he wanted to alter the size of the deck to fit the stairs. This means the elevation of grade was crucial. The client took some elevations measurements for me, and I drew the plans based on that. Then I went to superimpose on the elevation PDF, and found out if I aligned the top of the new door correctly, my CA grade (and stairs) were below the PDF one. I then double checked the original plans and yes the main floor to grade height was different from the actual measurement by 6". So I ended up cheating a little and reducing the height while not maintaining aspect ratio (And left everything undimensioned). The other thing I noticed for the site plan, is the surveyor plan had text where I wanted to put my text, so it looked a bit like a dog's breakfast when I was done. So it got me thinking, does anyone use another PDF to CAD program for this purpose. because if I had the original elevation in CAD, I could have simply altered the original drawn grade line to match my CA ones(and what is actually there) , and I could have easily removed surveyor text or moved it (rather than the usual "draw a white box") there have been a few topics on this, but I'm not entirely sure if people use some commercial (or free) PDF to CAD for this purpose, and if they use it for a similar purpose, does it work alright or is there a bunch of manual fiddling around? in other words are people happy with PDF to CAD and then bringing it back into CA or is it more hassle than its worth Attached is how it ended up (PDF pge 2). The deck is 9' and the exiting lower window is 9' from the garage so these kind of had to match, which is why I could not reduce the size at the correct aspect ratio Anyway, just wondering if a PDF to CAD would have worked better and what others are doing. And I get pdfs which are both raster(bitmap) based and vector, so any program would have to convert the raster based lines to vectors Thanks! MArk VR v0.6.pdf

well in this case it was not my plan (and there are actually two linked plan files), so I had to go looking. It turned out to be on the redrawn plot plan. I figured maybe you knew an easy way to find them :o). But your line of thinking is probably a good one, what are the chances of one forgetting where one put them....probably low.

I'd be interested in this if it was cost effective. Currently I use a bosch laser measurer with their free software. It takes me about an hour to do one level. If I could roam around instead of beep around (and have to draw the walls), it seems like it would be worthwhile. Some measurements are critical for code though. I need to know the furnace door is 34", not 33.45678" same with hallways, posts. a 5' bathtub does not fit into 57" with the bosch I have to take some auxillary measurements for posts, clearance of furnace, etc. I would assume I would need to do the same thing with this software?

is there a way to "find" variables. I was hunting and pecking looking for" $ga" in the layout and the plan. the search/ find tool in CA doesnt seem to find it. IS there another way?

interesting technique, took me a bit to find it... defining the global variable right in the label: " Proposed Garage Garage Area = %$gasf=area.round()% %$ga=(area.convert_to("sq m")).round(2)% m² " I never thought of doing it that way. I was always calling a macro to set the variable. Doing it the way you've done it means no macros Thanks for the insight.

Thanks, ironically, I did that (added in two lines,before and after) about the same time you were writing it. so good to know that is the correct way I watched the videos again, and the difference in size of retaining wall is her terrain does not go to the bottom of her foundation. Mine does because it is a walkout. So when she draws the terrain wall it is only a couple feet deep. Anyhow, thanks for helping.

I find I am not there yet. sometimes it is full sets. i do a lot of basements, addtions, suites, but the size varies, so it is sometimes at 3/8, sometimes at 1/4. sometimes there is a stair section, but if I do not have to do two floors there is not. I tried to use my full set layout, but there were too many pages. In thinking about this some more, to make it as general as possible, there should be as little unique plan info on the layout as possible. Today I have the section callout on the layout(I think I followed one of CA's videos) it keeps the callout label consistent size, which is nice. but I have to move them around if I have more or less sections. It would be easier to have this on the plan, and perhaps live with the callout label size inconsistency (and have to constantly place them on the section...which is why I think I moved them to the layout to begin with). I guess where i am gong with this thought is, if you had to create mutiple options for the same plan for a client, and started a new template for each, it would be a bit of a pain to repopulate the layout with all of the details (that did not come from a plan) and do any other adjustments to the layout (notes). The only way to do this today would be to do the whole process of, save layout as new, rename linked plan, open layout, link to new plan, rename old plan back to original name. I'll try out the tool for a bit, and see how it works. If it seems useful, I'll post it. The other thing i might get added to it is a function to just not associate any plan file to the layout. This would essentially create a template layout from any layout without having to go through the rename thing

extend you second floor walls over: i moved the roof back to take a look moved back:

thanks: yes that is the conclusion I made in my earlier post: "So i think the lesson here so far, is I cant just go into the room to change the elevations. I need to setup the floor defaults/structure defaults to match...if I have a tiny room(wall beside foundation). Whereas before I always just set the room elevations to be correct and did not care what the defaults were." in other words, you do not have to change your defaults the vast majority of the time. The vast majority of the time you can just change the room structure values on the room dbx. But if you are changing a room to be a tiny room, CA then all of a sudden changes the current room structure values(based on the defaults)...for some unknown reason. So in this specific tiny room case, one MUST go and change the defaults. I'll log a ticket and see what they say. I'd actually appreciate it if they had a category of published notes which showed this type of odd behaviour, so one could go review them. This is not an easy thing to just search for