VHampton

...now that's the way it's done, w/ the structure tab and inputs. Excellent job.

Excellent suggestion by Larry. OPTION B & C... Use a flat roof with wood flooring as the roof surface OR manual ceiling planes. Both will appear as new wood framing in cross section views (which is how the real world condition will ultimately look). Altering the structure tabs would have boosted the foundation wall height, and that's not going to be how it's constructed.

Room definition on the 2nd floor can often be the culprit. If there may be a 2nd floor space which is driving down the height of first floor walls... Check the 2nd floor structure tab and see if the floor system is going by the floor default. Example 2 x 10's vs 2 x 12's will force the 1st floor to have a lower top plate. Your project appears to be a one story home however.

BTW Melissa... I removed my reply because it didn't appear to be the answer you were looking for, even though Mark made an excellent observation. Having said that, everyone on the forum is like a good neighbor, and we're all here to be of help. As an architect with a civil engineering background, I will often provide structural and code related observations for example. Most importantly, I was definitely not the one who down-voted your post. (I personally really dislike that feature). Perhaps a member of the community reacted, since everyone here works with the spirit of cooperation. Again, if by chance the architect whom you're working with may want to know more about the codes, the link below goes through the same scenario. He may even thank you for it. What's being shown is in violation of IRC code which is a nation-wide standard. Kindest regards, and for what it's worth, great job with your design! All the best! https://www.houzz.com/discussions/4894085/gas-range-too-close-to-wall https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IRC2015/chapter-24-fuel-gas

Agreed. Make a second floor and call it balcony or unspecified.

The glass material appears to be correct. Vector views will never be see-through unless opacity is unchecked. Question... have you tried looking at an archived plan file? That's typically the best place to look when figuring out why something is behaving differently. Open up a saved plan and if the glass is see-through. If so, then recalibrate the current plan accordingly.

Looks as if you could (should) begin with (2) roof planes. Each roof plane can be started out as a 12 in 12 pitch coming off of the first floor. Curve them as needed, and the rest looks like it should be smooth sailing.

Check the glass properties. Click on the glass with the rainbow icon. The material should be set for transparent glass. Crown glass is the default. Glass will always be transparent in standard views... but for vector (line drawings) you'll have to toggle the rendering technique.

What Michael posted is spot on. The stairs are too narrow. Move the stringer over and that'll get that exterior rail to appear inside the opening. Observation... Even when the railing gets resolved, those stairs may need winders at the platform if they get scrunched into the current opening. 1.) Can you make the stair hole longer? Right now it looks as if a few treads are being buried inside the floor framing. 2.) Can the wood post be moved so that it serves as the newel? That would look pretty good. The landing rail could die into it the repositioned post like it does on the far end.

Interior wall of the porch (patio or balcony)? or the interior of the house? Per Tea Time... per IRC regulations, exterior spaces are required to have ground fault circuit interrupters - for the receptacles. The program has a default to ensure compliance. ...which is actually really good. Regarding the OP's inquiry, the room classification is most likely telling the program that there may be presence of water in that space. That's why outlets are coming up as GFI's. Change the room name, but more importantly, the room type.

Thank you Doug. Please excuse the delay in getting back. Your post was greatly appreciated. This is going to be a huge help in the future. The project which I started the thread with got the ok by the municipality, but your precision script is all the better particularly since it hones in on the exact glazing. Much appreciated! - Val

Thank you Mr. T! In terms of SH Canada's comment... It's a mystery. Below is a theory, but 100% plausible. In toggling back and forth between an "Architectural" plan w/ room labels vs. the "Structural" plan w/ no room labels ... The toggling between the layer set of "no room labels" may be causing the glitch where Living Area appears and then disappears. When Living Area goes missing... so do ALL of the room names in the layer set where they had previously existed. Living Area happens to be under the layer (of all things) "Room labels". Placing Living Area under a new dedicated layer seems to have resolved the disappearing issue.

As an observation... I may have found the glitch. Initially I thought that it was the result of bring an X-14 plan into X-15. Not so. This occurrence happens on "out of the box" brand spanking new plan files. So... if by chance you may delete "Living Area" there appears to be a direct correlation to losing not some but ALL of the room labels. Thankfully it's become easier to rectify by holding the shift key after selecting one room. Then you can click, click, click and get every room to highlight. Turn on room labels all at once with the opened dialogue box for that one room. Anyway... lesson learned is not to delete the Living Area. This has happened far more times than it should have. Ideally X-16 will have corrected this bug.

Indeed. It's quite similar. That's the (4) sided flitch plate ridge beam which carries the cupola. They furred-out the load bearing cupola walls with an interior thickness. This is probably what your engineer will do. Meaning to place the cupola over the structural ridges. Then you can frame down the shaft much lower as per your rendering (just as they did in the photo). Trusses will also eliminate the need for the steel over the bar stools. There will still be a beam, but now there's only "dummy" rafters (sloped interior ceiling framing) which will not be presenting tons of weight. (A glue-lam could probably do all of the work in carrying the sloped ceiling). Good luck with the project!

Architect w/ civil engineering background, but don't take my post as anything other than general observations. Your design is do-able in any number of ways, and ultimately the engineer will decide. For example... They could opt to use a four sided ridge at the base of the oversized cupola. This would allow the upper "cupola" walls to bear down onto the 4 rectangular interlocking ridge beams which would spread the load onto the structural hips. Very much like Michael has shown, and as others have suggested. The use of collar ties as shown in Michael's cross section would help support the ridge by means of posts. The bottom line is that there are always many ways to approach a structural solution. If truss manufacturing is local to your area, then by all means consider that as a possible cost savings method. All the best!

Flitch plates bolted inside micro-lams can address the roof. They can weld a moment connect at the ridge. They'll do the same welds at the base of the longer walls. The rafters by the Kitchen have no bearing wall. They'll need a W section to handle the gravity loads (posted on both ends). There's enough height however to get a tall beam in there. Engineer will probably size something 14 inches tall and at least 100 lbs per foot. By the way, even if the vaulted area gets collar tied (which it should) steel over the bar stools is a must have.

Basically each "step" is treated as a landing. So to get to the point... you've got (5) landings, and each one gets progressively smaller as they approach the door. This thread will help.

Auto-roof will do the basic essentials - meaning a perfect overhang and with the baseline established neatly against the outside wall. Once the eave and gable end overhangs have been calibrated, that's where your skills with manual tools can take over. Example... there are often multiple roof edge heights (and ridge elevations) in designing Shingle-style homes. By simply changing roof fascia heights (and slopes), you'll get perfect results every time. This is where the initial auto-roof build tool forces the roof "baseline" to be butt up against the outer wall frame. It's the green dashed line. Ideally that should be up against the house rather than 2 feet away. It's somewhat of an important relationship so that the rafters are being birds-mouthed over the top plate. It's a fulcrum point which keeps your cross sections clean. (All of this will become much more obvious as you learn how to master the program). Anyway, great job... and that plan sure does look nice and clean now.

A few suggestions... Turn off the base lines and changing the line style of the roof from dotted to solid. (Some roof sections have unequal overhangs. ...might need a bit more adjusting) On a side... this is a fairly straightforward design for the auto-tools. After the roof is constructed (by auto build) fine tune the center ridge which needs to have the lower pitch. This way... the eaves will be perfect. Hope this helps. ...Not intended this be a critique, but rather a pointer. Custom roofing can get off to an excellent head start after the program has set the ground work for perfectly established baselines and overhangs. After that... manual edit as necessary.