Larry_Sweeney

Yes, this is more correct, I think. Though if each wall has the same amount of layers pass the main layer you shouldn't have to use the "THROUGH WALL AT START". I guess it just depends on how different the wall types are and how you want the look at the corner. "THROUGH WALL AT START/or END" gives you that option.

Scott....What you're saying is the same thing I said isn't it? You need to have the same number of wall layers beyond the main layer on the exterior side.

I've had this happen to me a couple of time lately. One time I was trying to move a door. The other time I think it was a window, so it's showing as a problem in a number of places. I found by closing CA and then reopening it corrected the problem. I work from my home office so there are times I have CA open on the computer for days at a time. This probably doesn't help the problem and I just figured that was the main root of the problem when it would correct once I closed CA down and then reopened it. Maybe I was just lucky.

I "think" what David means when he says "Walls connect by way of the wall's "Main Layer" so if your main layer radio button position is incorrectly set" is that on the walls you are trying to connect you need the same amount to layers beyond the Main Layer to get the "proper" look/connection in plan and render views. If I'm wrong David, please chime in and correct me.

Ray..........I just read your post so I'm not sure if you are still interested in a door unit with sidelites, rect. transom, but I'll send it out anyway. I had this in a model I did a few years back so I just took the wall that had the door unit in it and put it in a new plan rather than make it a symbol. You can unblock it and play around with the size. door.zip

By "cleaner" I'm not quite sure what you're after. When you use "Cross Section/Elevation" you get everything from the section cut to the end of the model of what is turned on in the layer set you are using. You can get a "cleaner" look by turning off certain layers. You can also use "Backclipped Cross Section" and you get from the cut to the distance and direction you move your mouse while holding the left mouse button down. This can also give you what I would call a "cleaner" look. It all depends what you want to see or not see. Can you show the section using AutoCad so we can see the comparison between AC and CA? I and others will then have a better understanding what you want.

Instead of second guessing the problem, which could be caused by many different things, the best thing to do would be to post the plan.

Make it using a rectangular polyline in plan view and then convert it to a sidewalk. This way you can give it the exact shape you want.

My first thought is to close CA and then reopen it. Sometimes that's all it takes when CA is doing something really weird. If that doesn't work and you don't get a better response from someone else contact tech support.

Found it! Have a great day.

Is there a quick way to find a center of of an arc. I know I can find the radius of the arc by highlighting it, then make a circle of that radius at each end of the arc line and at the intersection of the two circles is the center of the arc. but isn't there and easier way? I was thinking there was a dbx. somewhere that you could check that would show the centers of an arc when highlighted.

By "3D polyline" are you referring to a 3D molding polyline? If you are, I don't quite understand the problem. You should have no problem by using a 3D molding polyline of your profile, making the molding material the exterior siding surface and following around the outside of the house wall. By doing this your inside/outside corners and ends should look correct. If your molding profile extends up into your windows you might need to us a "shorten" variation of your molding profile under your windows. Possibility posting the plan will help clarify what you want.

Lew.........I did the "F12 thing" many times while I was trying to figure out what the heck was going on. I also did the slap upside the head (mine) along with a couple long walks around the property with a beer. It was actually the second time I closed CA and reopened it that I got the correct results. I think the guys at support have my computer somehow wired into their system and were playing with me.

Glenn & Gerry............Thanks so much for your expert knowledge in using CA. Much appreciated. I hope this detail/information may be of some use to others "down the road". Have a great day.

Glenn.....Does your version look like a wall in plan view? That would be more important to me than the framing. I can deal with the framing in other ways. If your "wall" looks correct in plan view, I'm really interested in the procedure.

Joe......That's basically what I came up with. I haven't figured out how to get rid of the small sliver on the one side. There must be a "magic work around"

Mick, Jim, Robert and others.....Just to let you know. "Use Soffit surface for ceiling" was not checked. It is a Deck and that should not effect it. As a matter of fact everything is checked as it should be to give me the correct results. Out of frustration deleted the roof planes in question and rebuilt them using all the exact same settings and now the rafters are acting correctly. I don't know rather to be glad or p***ed off. As far as I can figure there is nothing different between the old roof planes and the new ones. One other thing I did come to think of was close CA down and reopen it. I know that can be the "majic touch" sometimes. CA can be soooo frustrating at times. Thanks to all for your advice on this matter. Have a great day.

I'm just curious. Shown in the attachment is a arched wing wall on a Victorian porch I'm designing. In the model I made this out of a series of p-solids. Does anyone know how or if this could be made from a regular CA wall? I've played around with the idea, but I'm not getting anywhere. It would be nice to have the framing. I need to show framing details, because of all the things that is going on in the way this porch is constructed. I'm sending the file encase anyone wants to tackle the idea. Berlin 07252014.zip

This home owner has some "pull". Because the house has so much "historical significance" to the area he is allowed to use the same heights as the railing is on the original porches around other areas of the house, This holds true as long as everything (architectural details) on the "new porch" matches the detailing of the original house and period it was originally built.

Jim..........Yes, that will cut the rafter tail, but it also makes all the rafters in the roof plane the same size as the gable sub fascia instead of what I have it set to as 7 1/4". I think this should be or is a bug. I think the gable sub fascia should only affect the soffit area framing, not the entire roof plane. That is unless I'm missing something. I have the gable sub fascia set at 4 13/16" to allow me to make the gable trim detail I show.

Robert....I thought it should, but it isn't as I have shown. This is also why I show all the settings that I think pertain to "cutting" the rafter. I've played around with all sorts of combinations of settings, but so far I haven't found the right combination. Every time I make a change in the settings I rebuild the roof plane to see what that change does. I was hoping that possibly someone would pick up on the dbx that I might have set incorrectly.

Is there a setting to cut this tail level to the soffit so it shows correctly in a detail? I'm showing what I consider all the settings that deal with changing the rafter and what my setting are set too. I know I can do a cad detail and change everything manually, but I'm trying to avoid it if at all possible. CA keeps telling us that their goal is to make the model as accurate as possible to avoid needing better cad tools or using cad details at all. There "should" be a way to show this rafter tail correctly. Thanks to all in advance for your time and advice.

As I mentioned in the previous thread, the point where the sloped wall started was determined by the height I wanted the top of the wall above the treads. There are other areas on this old Victorian where there are similar details and I'm trying to keep those common heights/details on this new porch addition.

One thing I really like about 3D modeling is that you can "build" the product/model and see that your ideas really work. I've been building and designing since 1972 and in that time I've had a "few" projects to build (especially from the "hand drawn days") that looked interesting on paper, but in practically there was no way it could be done. With CA and doing the "unusual" at times I'm not sure if CA is "telling" me it can't be done or that it can be accomplished, but CA can't do it. That's what is great about this forum. There is usually someone here that can "fill" me in on the "can and cannot" of CA. Mick.......That was my first thought, but CA would not let me make correctly. When you angle the wall coming right off the end of another wall CA makes the connection pointed instead of a square cutoff end. (attachment) I then realized I needed to have the level flat area a short distance so when I changed the wall's slope to follow the stairs the wall would be at the correct height above the treads. Some time ago I think there was a discussion on how to not have a angled wall do this at the connected spot, but I haven't looked for it get.

Bill......I'm finally understanding what you are saying. Whether in CA or "real life", the way I have this flared railing shown will be a real PITA to deal with. Would you (or anyone) have a better suggestion on how these flared steps could/should be done? I appreciate your and others help and advice on this problem. Thank you to all.