SHCanada2

True, however, one could build a program that looks exactly like that dialog box, and output the results into a text file, which could then be read by CA. My two cents, you could get pretty close to the same results with Rene's system (or another macro system) for the DETAILS. But the cross section you have shown just doesn't make sense if there are different wall thicknesses, roof pitches, insulation, etc etc @HomeDesign724 if your boss man cannot explain the cross section or it is a "just accept the inconsistencies", then I would suggest telling the boss man to do something different. I for one, do something like below where inputted variables drive the detail(similar to Rene). I used to do a cross section similar to yours but just found it redundant to the details. more effort to flip between pages, but less effort on my part

hmmm, so for your screenshot which shows the porch, you would not show the porch (how would this look?). Or you would show the porch just with the wrong roof pitch, and then another cross section with the right roof pitch on the porch but the wrong roof pitch on the house?

@HomeDesign724 how is the cross section working? you could have two pitches in the same cross section. there is only one pitch in the dialog box

I think I understand the details, but how is the cross section working. you could have two pitches in the same cross section

My guess as well for the details, but what about for the cross section he has? And if his two roofs on the section had different pitches? how would that work? @HomeDesign724 any idea how the cross section works?

this may be a possible reason. CA is changing it under certain conditions

what is dynamic in that cross section? I'm still not understanding what that represents. Is that actually the cross section of the house, and then further adjusted by that dialog box? What would a sunken living room floor look like and how would the one floor height change in the dialog box impact it? i.e. that dialog only has one floor height, what happens to a sunken living room when you change that height? Are all the annotations just put where they are with no user interaction? Impressive if it does

do those details dynamically change size or remove components? For instance, if you specify 2x4 walls or 2x6 walls, does the one detail show a wider stud, or are there two different details? and how does the cross section work. The entry screen shows 8'1 floor heights, but the image show 7'9? The dialog shows 12:12 roof pitch but the cross sections shows 6:12. does the roof pitch CAD line dynamically change pitch? what if the cross section had a sunken room? Are all of those arrows dynamic, in which if you made the basement 10', they would all move up/down with the change in height? For me I have details similar to yours, cathedral, and normal. I then have variables in each where you specify the R value, cladding type, sheathing type, floor size, etc, but the CAD lines are static, only the text changes Watch Rene's video above, he has pointers which is similar to your radio buttons

I would disagree this is the same, CA permitted for years, there was not a no transfer rule. it was their discretion. this makes it defacto policy, not against a rule, because there was no rule prohibiting it

analogies are like statistics I can always find one that goes my way. I will agree with Lew on this one. If a company for years permits transfers, that is a defacto policy by CA, and now they are changing it. Contractually they always had the right to not allow it, but in their own internal policies I would find it hard to believe they did not have a policy/email/directive/internal memo etc which permitted it here's another analogy, for years you left your house, drove down the street and drove around the City. Then one day the city decides to close off your street and your car can never leave the street. and if you do not think this happend, there was a guy in coloardo? something similar happened to his shop. I think he then went postal with a self made armoured vehicle. Or the electric company can go put poles on their right of way on your property, or the gas guy can .... sorry, I'm never a fan of analogies, unless it is an analogy of a company or person's own behaviour/actions

F01 is much better. I will log a ticket as the default should be working you would think they would have a profiled jamb to stop the door when it shuts f01:

Stock doors, I'll try the other thanks

There is light coming through the jamb at left and at top Roof is there. backdrop intensity is 250. I lowered the exposure to 0.3 if i change the door is goes away setting is "sun follows camera" any ideas on how to fix? thanks

I think this is the thing, if you can setup your templates(with schedules, layout boxes, details already there) and a few macros, you can do things very quickly. For me I would find it hard to believe a tool could be much quicker for a run of the mill house to produce plans for construction. It seems the more odd/custom the house is then it takes the time, but for the vast majority of houses that are built on flat or near flat lots, it is pretty darn quick. That of course excludes any rendering, as I would consider rendering "extra" to the house plans/con docs. I would be interested in knowing how @DavidJames can do things quicker in revit for his residential designs

The SSA would be 2 components support and upgrades. Where I've seen this split before it was 4% for support, 16% for R&D, on a 20% subscription. But I like the pay for support model, I rarely use it, mostly to report bugs or lack of documentation

also see

For the garage, I tried reversing the wall, no difference when the stairwell is set to open to below, it is altering the basement wall. Not that that helps. but it is a clue to the behaviour. If that stairwell is set to garage, you get no foundation walls for the stairwell but the house foundation wall is then correct. Of course that would only introduce other problems so I am not suggesting doing that. If I set the laundry room to open to below, it does not shift that wall..so my guess is something about being in the garage The only way I found to fix is to turn off the auto build foundation and then move the basement wall to align, similar to Ryan's suggestion @rgardner I believe your fix for the other stairwell will also turn off the auto build The OP wanted to keep auto build on ...not sure that is possible

or they only get X number of plan files as the new user will take more time ...but that would be very difficult to implement. or you do the time thing, but the first year is discounted. but even that doesnt work because if I spend a bunch of time on a product defect or undocumented feature, I'd want a credit.

I call floor plans and elevations "floor plans and elevations" and call renderings (3d) "renderings" or "3D renderings". CA's 3D model is just the means to produce those plans and renderings I use the phrase "Regulatory compliant plans" to note that I will stand by my services until they pass the jurisdiction's regulatory approval. ... just a tidbit on how to sell more

What is the purpose of BIM for residential design? Around here the trades and the floor/roof people put together packages based on the plans provided. Or are you suggesting CA get into the non residential market?

never know, maybe this change will cause a run on product sales. For me I will also pay a premium to ensure there is also competition n the marketplace. The reason I would not choose revit is because if everyone went to revit, then a) no one would listen to what you want as the pool is so large b) they become more expensive due to no competition. And not to mention the grass is not always greener on the other side. I have seen revit plans with so many errors in them, you could tell how much was hand built/manipulated In my view, CA does a good job of listening to their users. I personally do not use the support service very often other than to report bugs. One thing CA could do is to charge for support differently than product (if it made a large monetary difference). CA has great videos, as do other people and a great user community. By separating support out, it may give a monetary break to those that want to take the risk to learn it themselves, and allow CA to be more price competitive.

Perpetual SLA (software license agreements) usually stipulate you have the right to use and there typically is no expiry in the SLA. It is the "contract" between the vendor and end customer. So he answer to the question should be in the SLA

what might happen is the O/S will expire you. your computer will die, you will need to buy a new one, with a new O/S and it will not work with your X? version

I think if I was starting out I'd be hesitant to do subscription. I'll gladly pay the upfront fee plus $585 a year as long as the improvements from version to version are making me more efficient. And for me from X12 to X13 to X14, they were definitely there. I do mostly basement developments (where half the time full elevations are required), same form factor plans, some small additions, rarely a new custom house. So my business is more repetitive work, so it is all about the efficiency, and I would find it difficult to believe a different software could do it much quicker ( there are a few thing I have suggested which could probably take another 10% off). I mean literally, I do basements in 2-3 hours, elevations in 3 hours, and as builts with elevations in 8 hours, But most of my clients are a variation of a rectangle and about half my work is for regulatory purposes or for sales purposes so the detail does not always have to be there. So I am fortunate I suppose in that I do not do a lot of finicky time consuming work where I see a lot of the workarounds/know how must be applied. I'd be a little worried the new customer signups might be less with this new model, which will then trigger the SSA to increase in order to achieve the same revenue. but we will see. In the meantime, it does not impact myself other than when I want to sell my license it will be worth less as it will be tombstoned on whatever version I end up at...but I can live with that as long as the product keeps making me more efficient on every version

it will be interesting to see a trend of new customers under this model. I can tell you when adobe went to subscription, the Total cost of ownership over 5 years quadrupled and I went elsewhere because there were others that were not subscription. But if every vendor goes to subscription, we all have to live with it. I personally think the perpetual + SSA is a good model. but you are also correct that they must make a profit. But i would ask, how did they make a profit in prior years, lots of new users...and now the rate of new users has slowed? I suppose that will eventually occur in most industries. so perhaps we should be happy we rode the wave while we could