Larry_Sweeney

Can an eyebrow dormer be built using CA so the ridge of the dormer pitches up the roof rather than being level? If this can be done can anyone steer me in the correct direction. Thank you.

When you select/tab the individual windows of the mulled they do not have the "sill or casing" selection available.

NOTE.............The second and third attachments should be reversed.

Joe..... "you might need to select/tab to each of the components and set the "Sill" there." Are you meaning by this statement that I should do this before I mull them? If that is the case then that was what I did. This shows in the first attachment before mulling the units.

I want to mull a casement window with sills on each side of a door. (attachment 1) Once I mull the units I have casing replacing the window and door sills and I lose the door sill. (attachment 2) I then opened the mulled unit and rechecked exterior sills, which is a custom sill profile and lose all casing & sills around the mulled unit. As shown in the third attachment, there is a "blank area" around the mulled unit where the casing a sills should be. Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong in my mulling setup? I've tried doing a search on the subject, but I'm either not "labeling" the search correctly or it has never been discussed before.

I might not be understanding the question, but why can't you just use a moulding profile to make the dome. If it is a simple dome, once the profile is made you can make it any size in width & height when brought into the plan.

I'm assuming by "shop drawings" you are referring to 2D cad. I used ACAD for years to do all my cad work. I started using CA in version 10 and have been trying to use CA's cad tools ever since to do my cad work, but at times it has been very slow and frustrating. There are many on here that will tell you CA's cad tools are just fine, but I think many of them have very little experience using other cad programs. CA was developed as a modeling program first and seems to just have "thrown" in some 2D cad tools to quiet the what they think were a few percentage of the whole users. There goal is to make the model so accurate that 2D cad isn't necessary and that's great, but I think that's a long way down the road. They MUST do more to improve their 2D cad (and 2D dimensioning). There has been many threads over time talking about this problem, but for the most part they have gone unheard (my opinion). So, to answer your question, yes you can make shop drawings in CA, but you may get very frustrated at times using it for 2D.

Perry........I did not want them grey. I wanted them black. If they are set to be black shouldn't they show as black even though the lineweight is only 1? I'm not quite sure how the lineweight got set to one. This was an older plan that I brought into X7. Not only are a lot of my lineweights wrong but 2/3's of my linetypes are not correct when I brought this plan forward into X7. This plan came from X5.

Okay, I think I found the problem. My lineweight was set to 1 for my cad lines. (?) I changed the lineweight to 18 and the lines showed black in the "Print View". To double check the problem I changed the lineweight of the dimensions to 1 and they showed as grey in the "Print View". I'm not positive, but I don't think I had this problem in previous versions. I'll have to review X5 and X6 and see if this same anomaly shows up in those versions. Does anyone else want to check this out also just to confirm it is just not my printer?

Alan.........my dpi only goes down to 300

Scott..........Shown in the attachment was how my preferences were set up-------just as you said they should be.

Sorry I didn't get back to you all before this. I was called to a job site to work out a problem.

I'm not sure what the problem is because it has never happened before. I made a cad detail of a door section. All layers used and lines are black. When I did a print preview the drawing shows as having grey lines, but the dimensions are black. (attachment) I've unchecked "Print in Color" and it's still the same. I've checked my printer setup to make sure it's not to grayscale and it isn't. I'm either drawing straws at this point or I'm having a "brain fart"    Am I missing something very simple? As always, all help is greatly appreciated

This is the term called "z-fighting. While you are in the camera view go to 3D-Edit Active Camera-Camera-Scene Clipping-Clip Surfaces Within. Change the default number to a number from 200" to 600". (attachment) I'm not sure why it does it on just the one monitor, but this should fix your problem

     I've done many restoration projects here in northeast/central Pennsylvania over the last 40 years. Victorian homes built in the 1890's around here usually had 7/8" sheating (horizontally laid), full 2X4 ballon studding, 3/8" wood lath and 3/8" of plaster. Generally speaking the studs were on 16" centers. There has been a few occasions where the studding was on 18" centers, but around here I've never seen 24" on center wall studding from this time period. I've run into very few cases where the floor joists were not a full 8". Some were only a full 2"x 8" on 24" centers, but in better built homes they used a full 3"x 8" on 16" center. The better built homes had 7/8" to1" floor sheeting with a 13/16 T&G finished floor. Lesser built homes just had one layer of 1"- 1 1/4" T&G boards for the floor. Ceiling joist, with no floor above were usually a full 6" deep.

Dennis............Thanks. It's been a while since I worked on this project. I forgot all about the invisible wall. I'm glad it was something simple. Have a great day!

I changed my tread width from 9" to 11" and my flared steps went wild. With the 9" treads all the treads flared out to the angled walls correctly. After changing the treads to 11" the bottom tread angled the other direction as shown in the attachments. I thought by changing the "contraction distance" the problem would get fixed, but nothing changed. The steps are marked as winders. What am I missing? As always all help is greatly appreciated.

BERLIN REAR PORCH 05152015.zip

I'm pretty sure you'll have to do that manually. You can go into the wall specifications, under the structure tab, to wall intersections and do a "through wall" at start or end and that will change the corner franimg some what, but it stills gives the same type/style of corner framing.

Select the wall that has the header in you want to delete. While selected go to the bottom and select "wall detail" icon (attachment). This will open the framing layout for that wall. Delete the header and make your changes. Don't forget to check "retain wall framing" in the wall specifications under the "structure" tab once you made your changes for this wall. I think this is what your after.

Somehow I got four copies of everything in my "User Catalog" in the Library. I'm going down the visible library page on the computer screen and delete three copies of each item and then wait and wait and wait for it to delete. It is taking forever and I still have a hundred of so items to delete yet! I don't understand why it's so slow, but I can't do anything else while it's deleteing. Tell me there is a much easier way? As to how I got so many extra copies I'm not sure and right now I don't care. I just want a faster way of deleting the extra files. The library "Delete Library Items" window has been showing for 8 min. and only about 1/6 of the bar is green. At this rate it will take a couple of days. As always all advice is much appreciated.

If only we could adjust the pitch...............maybe X8

You can edit the lines in layout, but it should be one of the last things you do. Everytime the elevation is open in layout all the edited lines will return.

Thanks Greg---much appreciated for your time. If I may make one comment. The precast cement unit usually has an 8" tread and 8" rise. This is true for the units made in our area anyway. In the picture it looks to be less both ways. I may be incorrect. It's a great symbol with good detail.

Joe......Yes, I agree as I sort of stated above. ------------- Maybe X8!!!

Bill.....Using the "curtain" is defintely outside the box thinking. That was discussed not to long ago in a thread. I try to use CA's windows as much as possible and then add a "correct" sill symbol at the right height and attachment to frame and a custom stool symbol to the inside in the correct placement. Correct stool placement, I think, is quite critical when when doing special cabinetry and wall panels, which I get into all the time. I just wish CA would work on these two items. If they fixed the windows and stairs-----------I wouldn't have anything to rant about! 

Mark.......I understand your profile now. I was thinking you were after a "thumbnail roundover" profile, which is a quite common edge for cabinet drawers and doors and would produce the "line" you were trying to eliminate.

Joe.......Thanks. I appreciate the info. I'll give the subject more thought (go back through earlier threads on ruby to refresh me) and get back to you on what I think I would like and the possibilities. Have a great day.

    I've done a lot of restoration projects over the years and have made many custom window symbols because CA's windows are so "lacking" in there look and how a real window is put together-------especially historical type units.  I find from time to time all I need to do is "tweak" one of the units I've already made and it would work. Things such as jamb width or casing changes. Up to now I just make a whole new symbol. Is there anyway in CA to take a window symbol and "open/explode" it so one can make these minor changes without building a whole new symbol? Maybe I'm going about the actual window symbol building process all wrong to start with. Does anyone else build custom window symbols? What is your process? Many times I don't put trim on the inside until the window symbol is installed in the wall. One problem I found with custom window symbols is the the "hole" for the window is as large as the exterior trim. This can be a real problem if the interior casing is not the same width. I usually end up making a "pass through" hole in the wall the size I want and add the custom window as a "fixture" to get the look I'm after (yes a real PITA). This whole process could be avoidable if CA would give us the ability to design a more correct looking window to start with. To me the two biggest problems with CA's windows it the exterior sill (placement elevation, style and slope. Sills aren't attached to the frame, they are part of the frame) and the interior stool (elevation and stool should go to sash and not the window frame) Of couse this has been discussed since at least V10 (when I came on board in 2006) and probably before. Here we are 9 years later still dealing with the same problem. I think anything brought up about windows (or stairs) in "Suggestions" is sent to the bottom of the list pile. Okay-----so much for my ranting-----just my day.  If anyone has suggestions for my window symbols is will be much appreciated. Have a great day.