johnny

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.

Yes, now it works. I realize this is an easy fix to make this "example" issue work the way we wanted, but actually my brain didn't even go to the fact "I have to specify that a lower section of a model needed to have a check box unchecked so the program doesn't mistakenly balloon frame those walls to the 3rd level roof". I realize 100% this is me not knowing CA, but....I feel a lot of us are in the boat. CA approach is to think for the user until the user manually changes that through a Dbx - and I believe more architects/designers would prefer CA not doing something unless its told....or at least being able to approach it from both sides. In the meantime I continue to learn CA behavior since that is the status quo. These posts have actually helped me a lot frankly - thank you guys. I've been able to demonstrate to my mind the paradigm differences.

All I did was select "build roof".... I performed the exact same thing in VW as I did in CA. The result is CA wants to star thinking for me and adding substantial walls etc. Trying to manually place a roof plane did a similar thing. Not to mention the lower wall blasting through the 3d floor wall windows.

It starts to close the mid floor off with walls...

Split levels are easy in VW, primarily due to VW not thinking about "split levels". You can set any space, or floor level, at any point you want, and have a single wall connect however you want to any other object or shape.

but try to put a roof on the 3rd floor...CA doesn't seem able to handle that without a roof on both 1st and 3rd floor.

Something driving me crazy is when I am moving objects that dont have snap edges using pt-to-pt tool I can move it so that visually they are overlapping perfectly, but when you zoom in and measure they aren't. Below are pics, but this is actually taking a ton of time trying to position things. Is there a way to get things to snap no matter what within a certain distance? I have object snaps on but its not snapping many objects.

I can't have CA take a shape I made and make it a roof....or I can't have a shape become a wall etc. I realize there are some things you can get to behave like and object, but that is very limited from what i've seen in CA.

I'm following you Joe, but I am curious why CA has to be this way - and can it ever change? Here is a quick example (3 stories) in Vectorworks to show nothing is connected to anything I dont want it to be - and it makes for very clean and precise movement etc. I have drawn nothing for the middle story - its 100% blank, and the model is not reliant on anything being there. In fact, I show here where I simply moved the roof up a bit, and connected only 1 wall. I find that even though CA wants to save us time in automation of this process, I easily spend MUCH more time when I run into a "quirk" I can't get myself out of. Perhaps CA is what it is and won't change, but I think if they wanted to capture more architects/designers for their clientele they should think about this. By comparison, I tried to do the same thing in CA and it gives me a roof on each floor. I tried deleting the roof on the 1st floor and the walls connect to the upper roof...going through the windows on the 3rd floor. I try checking the box "stop at ceiling above" on the 1st floor walls and nothing changes. You can say "who would want a home with no middle floor?...and yes, this example that doesn't seem logical. However, its an association issue that causes issues in CA - and really can stop a project cold trying to figure it out. I greatly prefer less logic by the program and let me enter manual data - or at least the option to turn the automation off.

"with Chief endeavouring to make changes to the platforms to compensate for the users input that causes conflicts in the model." CA should really have a feature where you can turn off automation and manually create floor elevations and connections between walls and roofs, walls and walls, and walls and objects. In Vectorworks we have a "story" editor, but only through operation do major items connect. I really think having a solid non-automated way to model in CA (the professional version) would be useful.

Overall I think Chief's format is fine. What I dont like about Chief is how reliant it is on Dbx, and the "correct" view. What I want to see improved is the generic 3D shape modeling tools, and the "grouping" mechanics. We should be able to model shapes in lieu of "objects", and then set the "shape" as a "object". If you took Sketchup (which is very basic app), and merged that with CA - it may be the perfect result. From CA's own mouth it sounds like they are greatly improving the 3D shape experience. Scot Harris said: "Johnny: thanks for the thread. 3D shape modeling is in our product strategy"

I wonder if you can create a shortcut folder from a location inside Dropbox, and then manually place that in the same location as where CA looks for the user files? Here is the article I found https://www.dropbox.com/en/help/12

Yes, you are very correct. Here is a project I was dusting off from 2008 (at the real estate crisis when projects were put on hold) and having to start to bring forward again, and that is exactly why the coloring of the background is what it is - the yellowish tracing paper. ...but i have to say, ideas brought forward this way - the process is developed through the doodling...and can be very fast. Here is a block 2d model where we started planning for a hotel/condo project where most the terraces needed to be substantial and not have overhead covering as most projects have. Here in the NW we have light issues, and our client wanted to do a modern replication of a "hanging gardens". Anyway, this shows the process evolving. (obviously we had tons of these types of drawings but just showing a few to relate the story)