SHCanada2

3 hours ago, BenLondon said:

I only have 4.00sqft of walls????  This tool is whack

post the plan, something is going on

I share your frustration as I have had similar results...hopefully someone has the answer

Have you searched the forum? there have been a few threads on this in the past couple years

I have my regular window schedule, and my windows have the label: [%schedule_number%] %width%W x %height%H in plan and elevation viewe

I have added a new schedule to calculate window area on a specific building face, which means I now have two schedules with the windows. See last few entries here:

but now my window labels have both W01 and G0x in their labels. and the macro for schedule_number returns both. Is there a way to not have a specific schedule puts its schedule number against a window, but the other one does? 

switching it to callout does not help becuase the macro schedule_number always returns both

If not I would have to peel out the "Wxx" from the schedule_number in macro

closest I found in the sesrch was this:

but I do not see a solution

thanks

2 hours ago, Doug_N said:

exterior wall of a building

so is the part of the wall still considered "Exterior" that is above the soffit as it is enclosed.  or is it part of the attic, or roof, or soffit ...

black art of building code interpretation.... which for the 2015 edition (out of force now) had a "companion guide" to help with a consistent interpretation:

measured to the ceiling is the winner

1 minute ago, Doug_N said:

and this stops at the highest ceiling (Not the roof).

my understanding is it stops at the soffit...but that is why I say it is an "opinion" and not a science.

All I know is I submit it this way and the DA never complains, but when I first did this macro I had an error and they caught it so for all I know they do it themselves everytime as well and may do it slightly differently

8 minutes ago, Renerabbitt said:

Why are you using a polyline for this?

I did have a post on it somewhere, but too lazy to look for it today.

There is a table in the building code for the amount of glazing you can have on the side of an exposed building face near a property line which abuts another residential building's property. The further you are away, the move you can have

Exposed face is from grade to under the soffit, so this typically includes a couple feet of basement

example where you can see the blue of the polyline defining the area. Its more of an opinion than a science when you start to consider what all gets included. But you have to do it for additions that have windows to ensure you are not over the limit

25 minutes ago, Vicki17 said:

When I open plan default settings how do I know if I want the living area to go to "Main Layer" or "Surface" 

"surface" is typically drywall to drywall, where "main layer" is typically stud to stud. As to which one to use, that would typically depend on what your client expects.

On 2/22/2024 at 8:43 AM, SHCanada2 said:

I have a fairly complicated macro in a the window label, plus a macro in the polyline which does it all. the polyline sits in my template file on the elevation

 

If CA could publish schedule totals to a macro it would greatly simply the macro...pretty please CA

X16 schedules can do quite a bit as Rene indicates in another thread. After some fiddling, I also got the schedule to work for the window area as a percentage of wall area (required in Canada). Wall area still needs the polyline. But this eliminates the need to store the windows in a global variable.

So the request to publish the schedule total as an NVP is not actually required. The attached shows my original macro solution in the label, where the schedule shows similar output...except it does not have the "largest unprotected window"...not sure if that could actually be done in a schedule...maybe I will try. I'm thinking if one was creative one could essentially use the OIP to store variables, rather than use global variables...something to try and see.

that is typical house up here. Change the absolute elevation of the garage floor to be -36", and change  absolute ceiling to be whatever your main floor is, or change the relative rough ceiling to your main floor +36

please post to Q & A,

mine does for at least width and height. maybe you are using a different column? you might want to post th eplan

did you try creating a wall type that has the brick, and draw the foundation walls with that new wall type

below ground footings?

I suppose one could change the material from concrete to brick. You may wish to post an image of what you are trying to do

dimension defaults. You can also use point 2 point dimension and just pick where it dimensions to as you move the mouse along, at least for the plan view.

the dimensions can go to the framing or to wall surfaces. My guess is one goes to 1/2" drywall and the other does not.

You could post the plan for more definitive results

I saw this type of thing (although not quite as uniform) frequently in X15, so far I have never seen it in X16. you could download the trial and see

and to make matters worse, if I delete that room and draw another in the same place, CA remembers the settings. So then I draw a new room off to the side and set the relative height to 48 (instead of 60) and then move the wall over (expanding the room) and CA sets it back to 60. Is there a way to make CA "forget" the last room settings that were drawn in a specific location?

and then when I try and change the 60" I have to 48", it changed it to 81" and then I retype in 48, and it changes it to 60". around and around it goes

for future users, one has to check the "shelf ceiling" PRIOR to changing the relative ceiling height to make it work

Me thinks the documentation needs to document this behaviour

Documentation:

• Check Shelf Ceiling to prevent Attic Walls from generating over the interior walls that define the selected room. When unchecked, interior Attic Walls will generate if surrounding rooms have higher ceilings than the selected room. See Shelf Ceilings.

I noticed on the main floor it works, and changes the absolute elevation. but on the basement it leaves the absolute elevation and shows the walls to the ceiling. And if I change the absolute elevation manually, well it changes the whole floor even though I did not change the other room next to it. Any ideas?

should post in Q&A forum

the walls will typically extend to a roof. My guess is the roof plane has been lowered?

Did you try auto building the roofs and see what happens

5 hours ago, GeneDavis said:

because it models the appliance the way it actually sits, that being in a void the width of the the appliance.

isnt that what I showed above, take off the side and back panels of the cabinet, and the toe kick? you are just left with the countertop, which is what it would be IRL

I compared the object properties of his vs me dropping the CA chef series dishwasher into a cabinet

these are where his differ...that look like it might be what he did. The first one below is "side type" from the screenshot I put above (which is the chef series wiht right side set to none, and you can see the right side missing.

right_side ---------------------------------------------------------------  -------------------------------------------- NVPublisher
    actual_type ---------------------------------------------------------- "None" -------------------------------------- String
 

left_side ----------------------------------------------------------------  -------------------------------------------- NVPublisher
    actual_type ---------------------------------------------------------- "None" -------------------------------------- String
back_side ----------------------------------------------------------------  -------------------------------------------- NVPublisher
    actual_type ---------------------------------------------------------- "None" -------------------------------------- String

has_toekick -------------------------------------------------------------- false --------------------------------------- FalseClass
 

chef series with the above set like Mark's