SHCanada2

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

The survey around here for residential typically only has ASL elevation at certain points on the site. I am trying to convert these to elevation points in terrain, if possible. My first step was to import the DWG into CA. But I noticed that what look to be point markers in the DWG dont actually import in CA (I tried the different options in the import, no luck). Am I missing something or is this a known limitation: DWG with only property line and elevation layer data turned on CA with all layers (rotated): but even if I could get them in as "X" or something else, I do not see any option to convert to a CA elevation point. Is there a way? My method of last resort will be overlaying the PDF and creating elevation points in CA overtop of the X point markers in the PDF

thanks, I'm always looking for art and frames as well

use a reference plan

I suspect that is the issue. I do 24x36 all the time with CA details, and only time I have issues is if there are like 10 RTRT images

i've seen that once I think, and restarting CA fixes it

are these screenshots of the camera, or screenshots of the camera/image on the layout. You could post the plan and see what everyone thinks

looking a little closer at the screenshots, it looks like CA is making roofs in addition to the manually drawn roofs? This, I think, is expected behaviour as I have this happen all the time and then I delete the auto generated roofs (and turn off the auto build roofs). it is a bit of a PIA if you add some more building and want that portion of the building to auto build. As you have to go build the roofs, and delete the other roofs auto done on the rest of the building. rinse repeat everytime you change the building addition

might be similar as:

My apologies, I meant post the Chief .plan file

You might want to post the plan