johnny

Thanks Glenn - he called and got me all squared away. The major issue I had was when I added the lower floor for the main house, I didn't think about the fact it was also adding a floor on the upper garage.

For reference to visualize, here is the project existing conditions - and i put an arrow where the garage is on the site.

I'm having a bit of an issue on a current project I am working on where the lot is narrow and steep - and has a small 1-car garage up near the road, and the main house (very close to water) is a good 30'+ lower than the garage Fl elevation. I've set my elevations with "real-world" settings (above MHWM), and so set my main house subfloor to 28'. The Garage floor should be at 35' - since the real world elevation is 68' (28'-68'=35'). The garage with the terrain model looks correct, but I can't get the floor below the garage set at an elevation that makes any sense. Since i have a lower floor on the main house, does this mean my garage has to have a lower floor? I'm really not understanding how I need to setup the floor of the garage being so different than the house. If I manually enter info in the Dbx, it automatically changes other dimensions and I go in a circle. Thanks for any help. Plan_remodel.plan

Interestingly, i've seen many new modern homes with curtain walls in them - so I agree this is something they should add no matter what.

I've messed with trying to import surveyor provided data into CA and from my experience (as taught to me by Glenn W) its better to: 1. Export dwg file into simple lines. 2. Import into CA. 3. Create standard terrain - make larger than site. 4. Create terrain specification to act as "site" model within the larger terrain model. 5. Move/Create/Modify corners and lines of terrain specification to match imported PL coordinates. I personally just "outline/trace" over. 6. Use Elevation Spline to trace over topo lines/data 7. Set the correct elevation data for each spline - make sure to set terrain for "linear" representation. I know CA can do some "intelligent" import of data, but my experience thus far tells me its much faster (and more reliable) to rebuild the info in CA as noted above.

There are 3d scanners for things like this, but you'll spent more money and time on that process than just modeling yourself. Though it took you 10 hrs for a coffee table, I promise each time you go through that process you'll get faster and faster. It should take you less than 30 min to make most custom furniture pieces once you get the hang of it. http://matterport.com/

I've actually come to a point I can't place custom grid in any of the doors or the last window in the studio (facing the entry court) no matter how many times i restart. Too odd. Here is an updated file. Peterson_res_concept_r6.zip

To report back - so its very odd, I have to do a few windows and then restart the entire app to get it to do a few more windows. I'm unable to work straight through on the windows and finish them all. Maybe I need to reinstall CA?

Thank you - I have a lot of detail left to add to the plan...

After you posted this I restarted my entire computer and it worked. I guess I need to think about full restarts....too odd. Thanks for time.

Terry - build your trusses after you place the tray ceiling. The trusses are designed to follow the envelope of the "attic" space. If you build your trusses before you place the tray, then you will have a problem.

I am having an issue with this plan file where I was able to customize the grid on the first set of windows, but can't change the grid on any of the others. Could this be a bug? I've spent a lot of time trying to figure this out without luck. Below is a pic of the windows grid style I am looking to apply to the other windows/doors. Also, ive attached the plan file. Thanks! Peterson_res_concept_r6.zip

I just want to say i've had a similar issue Liz is having - and I had to extend the wall out longer one side, move the window, and then shrink the wall back to the correct location. I'll watch Alaskan's vid to see if there is something i too was missing. (added after watching video) OK, so I see that it appears that Chief isn't moving the windows but it does anyway. That is the nuance I was missing too. Thanks for doing the video, that was a big help.

I dont know your age, but before I knew what I wanted to do (architect) my father, who was a builder/developer, had me go work for a summer under the direction of the architect I eventually became partners with (after going back to school and then formal internship). Had he handed me a copy of a program and said start drawing my homes that would have done neither of us very much good. You dont have to be an architect, but I would recommend going and working for someone that knows what they are doing and then work on your fathers stuff from that office to begin with.

I can't speak for Alaskan_Son, but I have to agree the initial question was odd coming from someone "in the industry". Learning "how" to use CA isn't going to teach you the profession of being a draftsman/designer. And to your original question - yes, be prepared to do a lot of drawing even though CA makes the process much less drawing intensive than other apps.

When I opened the file it appears you send things to layout via images? ...or is that caused by not having the working file?

As it is currently is CA already markets the app for light commercial. I personally think "light" commercial is where the line should be drawn, as the app is nearly there now and light commercial isn't very far off from residential construction methods. CA development in this area would benefit residential only users as well. I agree though the focus should remain residential.

I designed this initial concept in CA of a commercial strip mall. The largest thing CA lacks IMO is any method for creating "components". Commercial often has elements (both large and small) that are repeated. In Sketchup, Vectorworks, Revit, ArchiCad etc etc you have the ability to make master components and copy those while retaining their link to the master (or then isolating as a new individual component). CA has "blocks", but the limitations on what you can put in a block is too great to be effectively used for this purpose. Modular design for hotels, schools, office buildings is a major aspect of commercial architecture. CA has no support for this currently. This project was a great example of why components are necessary - I had repeating elements that included walls/doors/windows etc that I couldn't "group" (block) and reuse in other areas of the design.

Yeah, i just double checked and it is showing the correct font. I guess I should report this as a bug?

Typically the designer is the owner of creative works. Unless you have some special arrangement otherwise, I can't see why you'd have an issue - so long as you dont share information on your client through the file.

I've sent all my default fonts to a certain preference - different than the Chief Blueprint font. However, when I go to use rich text, the "default" reverts back to Chief Blueprint. When I use that same dialog box to follow through to see what font should be defaulted, it confirms the font I choose. Is this a bug in X8?....or is there something I am missing? Thanks!

I've not seen specific controls in CA - but you can customize the spacemouse per application using their software. You just need to setup a profile for CA. What you do is make the last application you want to edit "active" - meaning current selection (just have it open). Then, select the spacenavigator that should be running in your system tray. The name of the application should be in the upper left side of that new window. Make your modifications on how you want it in that app, and then exit. That will make a custom profile.

I have nearly that exact system, but didn't opt for that type of graphic card since CA doesn't support it - meaning, it has no special integration like some other apps do. I got a Nvidia Titan and it works great.

Glenn and I had a skype call on all this and everything is working now. Thanks Glenn!

Thanks Jon - yes, it was very confusing but glad to at least know it wasn't me just missing it.