johnny

I am working on a remodel (which I dont often do) adding a larger living room and small balcony that will be the basis for a future stair to lower existing deck. 2 issues I am having. 1. The terrain starts to "freak" out on me when I place a terrain modifier to flatten area around pad, and 2. I placed the existing lower deck on a layer, and have that layer "off" in my 3d render view but its still showing. Any help would be appreciated - I am forcing myself to use CA though this. Here are pics and the file of course (please remember I am actively working on the file and its a remodel). ashok_mallya_residence_b.zip

Real quick on another note - is there no perpendicular snap?

Yep the cad line option worked - thank you guys.

I have a remodel where there is an exterior wall on a semi-odd angle, and the client wants a new window config. I'd like to make adjustments in elevation mode, but when I try and run a section/elevation on that area with the "angle-snaps" off, I can't find a way to get that precise. Intuitively I thought I could simply copy the angle (deg) from the wall and apply to the section/elevation - but no go. I can do that to the label of the section/elevation, but nothing else. Second, I went to see about a parallel tool such as we can do with nearly anything else, but the section/elevation doesn't have that as an option. The only way I can see how to do this is to eye-ball it....but surely that can't be the only way. I guess I am missing the obvious answer and would appreciate any help. Thanks!

"I THINK I UNDERSTAND, AND IF I DO UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, YOU HAVE MADE MY POINT. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS ALL THE REF SETS FOR ALL FLOORS ARE ALL THE SAME.... BUT MAYBE I DON'T WANT THAT, MAYBE I WANT UNIQUE REF SETS DEPENDING ON THE FLOOR I AM REFFING." Let me break it down this way, and I will use VW naming conventions just for reference. 1. Layers - Stories (floors) - Roofs/slabs/foundation - Any structural elements you want in addition and can have its own "z" elevation - There are no actual restrictions - so you can use how you want. 2. Classes (contained within each Layer and can be customized as well) - CAD Lines - Objects - Doors/Windows - Trim/Millwork - Text/Arrows - Sub Class Groups - Again, no actual restrictions expect this level is a child level to Layers Each Layer AND Class have the ability to turned off, greyed out, or fully visible....all this within a click. If you have a particular "view" you want to keep and quickly access, you simply save that view combination and can flip back to it whenever you want. You can also temporarily, or permanently change how a class or layer is displayed (line type/width/etc). Overall, this took me 10min. to understand when I started using VW. In CA, I really struggled the MRLS and still dont feel very confident in it. In fact, I watched the videos you did Scot for CheifTutor.com and I remember you being challenged in a few spots as well. (though don't take that as a negative thing, since I've come to find your "exploratory" way of teaching very helpful)

Its much more than symantics if you really think about it. Right now the MRLS works since it only has an additional floor to consider, but if you had many floors (MMRLS) and wanted to view certain layers on each floor combined with another floor's layers you would have to make floor specific layers of the same "type" for each floor if you wanted that control. Going in reverse, you can create sub-layers that relate to a specific layer and yet have the sub-layers all be the same throughout the file and reference-able. Having used both, I can tell you having a sub-layer level is superior in many ways to the MRLS - not to mention much easier to grasp. ___ Also, not bringing in a comparison of what exists in the market would be a disservice to CA. CA is judged largely upon how it relates to other software...as any product is. I've always acknowledge there are things CA does MUCH better that VW or other apps, which is why I bought a copy. However, there are many things the other apps do MUCH better and sharing that should be a positive thing.

There is actually a MUCH simpler way of doing all this than a MMRLS (which even the current system can confuse people). Right now CA uses Stories as a separate function from Layers. This creates the need to have a 3rd element we know as the MRLS. Instead of going 1 step beyond the MRLS, CA should move the opposite direction creating something "below" Layers which would embody what we currently know layers to be. In Vectorworks they are called "classes", but the name matters not. Doing this allows Stories to reside on Layers, and then layers can have visual settings option similar to "Onion Skins" where you can create any combination of visual options VERY SIMPLY. When you send something to Layout, you should be able to set visual options there on Layers/Classes to create nearly any "view" you want. Here are some examples of what I mean.

Give yourself enough lead time on projects concerning deadlines. I've been stuck many many times and had deadlines missed since I didn't account for getting as stuck as I did. Obviously every time you get stuck you learn how to get through the process, and the people on this forum have been beyond awesome in their help. Also, one thing that I am still trying to nail down is what object/type to use for what circumstance - and more specifically what view you need to start it in. If you draw say a poly 3d shape in one view, you end up restricting the ability to edit that shape in different views and so must return to the view you created to perform certain actions. Different tools have different rules, and coming from software that doesn't have that restriction was a real bugaboo for me. Lastly, dont approach CA with logic thats often present in other apps. CA has its own rules, and its own ways of doing things. That said, CA handles otherwise complex residential modeling elements simply. I've wanted there to be a software package out there that I could make work and CA is the only app i've found that can do the things it does.

Maybe I am confused - so really CAD details are simply for dumb CAD lines but you can have views which are in their own "container" so to speak "per view". For some reason we can place schedules in these areas that are suppose to be "dumb" but the schedules continue to operate. I guess I am understanding this better as a read, but I still could see using dumb CAD details with live sections.

Btw - thanks Larry for the video - very helpful. To me I would LOVE to have live details in the cad layers. I think from an organization point of view that would be very helpful. Curious why this is no longer possible.

When you guys are saying put everything not part of the main plan in CAD Details - I guess id love to understand more what you mean. Do you use CAD details for sections cuts of the building? You guys are ok losing update-able sections?...or are you bringing them in someway they can still be updated by the app? If CA is watching this thread, I would really love to see a video series on "best practices" for plan organization. The video library currently shows what you can do, but id actually like to see what we should be doing for the most efficient workflow.

Could you provide a link to your youtube again Yusuf...?

Thanks Yusuf - this is very interesting and I didn't even think of using a roof poly. I will check this out and try it.

Good questions that I am thinking about right now and how that might work in CA. My client has a degree in architecture, and was a professor - but never practiced. Whatever I do needs to pass just the visual test.

Ok, I was experimenting on how to do this (appreciate your comments) - and here is what I did: 1. Created the exterior molding line as Joe said. 2. Set the line segment along the window to no molding 3. Created a new molding line segment that matches the window 4. Bring my molding profile into a section view 5. Cut the molding profile based on the vertical window segment 6. Take the 2 new molding profiles into library 7. Set the vertical off-sets of the 2 moldings as measured in the section cut That may seem like a lot of work per window, but I personally dont change my header heights and keep most my horizontal lines parallel. So I may have to make a couple more sectioned moldings, but this was actually fairly fast. I've shown pictures - but please keep in mind this is just an experiment drawings, as the real design is coming. A few comments on things I wish I could do and I can't see a way. 1. Show the 2d molding lines differently and with a fill. Right now I have 2 lines representing my "molding" lines. 2. Shift around the profiles in a "live" view. I have this in other apps and its great. 3. Multiple elements like this that overlap each-other means you have to know exactly where the lines are, since there is no visual distinction. In Vectorworks I would "group" these lines so when I double clicked every other aspect of the model greys out and I only see/edit the lines I want to work on. Anyway, thanks again.

I have a client who wants a Greene&Greene inspired home - including battered walls in certain areas. My plan was to use a modeling profile the full length of my wall section - I wanted to see if anyone had a better idea - but that is the best idea I can think of.

If you wanted the "rough" beam look, you could take a 3d solid for the beam, and make other small sections that just barley overlap edges etc - then use the subtraction tool to be left with a "distressed" beam. I've done this on other projects before (not in CA, but the process is similar). ...then again, you may not need this level of detail.

So in your example what are the poly solids and what part is the stairway tool? I'm curious...

Glenn that is a handy way to do that - thanks.

Can you use Room Planner with CA files already made?....meaning can you use as a combination presenter and modifier...? Honestly, as a professional I would never use something like Room Planner with my clients to develop concepts right in front of them. I feel that app devalues and makes light of what it really takes to put a "real" project together, unless it really is about just remaking a certain area of a home.

Yes, this gets very annoying since 99.99% of the time I am going to want the snap to align things not offset it.

You are right Joe, the post does work a lot better - thank you. However, now the issue is different than I thought, as the opening has a click tolerance that allows me to get close to the object on my pt-2-pt operation, but not actually "snap" to it - therefore, I am moving the opening and having it snap to the post, but the initial selection of the opening isn't spot on....even though on my screen its spot on. I am forced to do like 3 zoom and re-pt-2-pt operations for what should be single swift action.

Sorry, "things" are in this instance a "pass-thru" opening (specifically the edge) to a primitive solid edge. I have to do multiple zoom-in's trying to get the 2 edges to align exactly correct. Here is the file (i included only the local objects for size). move_issue.plan

I largely agree, but I do think if CA is monitoring these forums (as I am sure they are), there is some valuable discussions taking place that should influence their approach. CA could leave the system they have, but add the ability (turn off automation) to manually make connections etc. I feel what we have in CA Premium for professionals is largely an overlay on the DIY products that dont have professionals at the helm.

Thanks Scott. You're the reason I am with CA, as I think i told you before. I ran into some of your video works and investigated CA more.