MC_Florida

I sent you a message

Hello Eric. Its good to hear from you again. I hope all's well. I did a search prior to posting as well as read the x9 help button and search the CA web site. My forums search only turned up 5 results which gave me some ideas. I did resolve my issue. In the Layout Page Table box by turning on all the columns there it was under label. I appreciate your tip though. As allways Thank You

Good evening fellow CA'ers How can I get the layout page number (main drawing index) to show my actual page number like A-1, P-1, etc.. and not just 1, 2, 3, etc? Is there a macro that can be put into the pages label to do this? I'm working in X9. As always any help would be appreciated...

Removing the slab eliminates confusion with the project to be performed. Again Thank You!

Thank You Michael!!!!! It worked I appreciate the help. Have a great evening

That worked Mike. I raised the stem wall by 1/16 to 4 1/16". I was able to then turn off the slab layer and keep all the foundation. The repercussion is that 16th of an inch now shows up in the 1st floor wall height. FYI the slab elevation was 2" below floor elevation 0.

They are on different layers... There are concrete block walls on the exterior of the foundation.

Thank you for applying Michael. Yes you are correct it is a mono slab. I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are saying... Aren't they independent?

Good evening fellow CA'ers I'm working on a project drawing involving interior stairs. I've been learning and have been using layers and layer sets. My problem. As seen in FoundationPlan1 below. I have the building foundation shown with a slab that surrounds 3 sides of the building. I'm working in the Default layer set. When I turn the slab layer off.... Why is it also turning off the foundation walls even though the foundation layer is checked and shown as displayed? See FoundationPlan2. Are these connected in a default? I'm working in X9. As always any help would be appreciated...

Thanks Eric Ill try that

For what its worth I just did this for an as-built, 3'+/- cantilever truss.. I built an exterior wall, parallel and offset the distance I wanted the cantilever minus the overhang and made the wall invisible. Set the roof plane baseline to the invisible wall, built the roof plane. That set the fascia top and ridge height spot on to the other planes. Built my trusses then I deleted the invisible walls. Worked for me

The ridge and fascia heights were exactly the same on all planes. The 2 - 24" roof planes adjacent to the 3' 10" overhang were defaulting to the value set in the roof overhang defaults in this case 24". To compensate for the one longer overhang the 2 adjacent roof planes in the roof plane specification/ options/boxed eve/ default to overhang had to be unchecked and a length equal or greater than entered to match the longer overhang. CA was doing what it was told. I guess there could have been some clearer instructions in the program help on this function. Living and learning! I won't forget this one......

Eric that was too easy and worked just fine. It didn't change any of the framing either. Thank you very much. I guess I just need to play with that a little bit to see why that works and understand. I spent to much time on something so simple. That plan was a test plan I do along side of my real project plan to test and solve issues I have with my real plan. Not really wanting to raise a lot of hell in my original plan. To answer your question the video helped because it showed me it was the 2 adjacent roof planes were the ones that need the adjustment and not as I interpreted from the pictures above to be the long overhang roof plane. Sincerely Mike

Eric, I'm not sure but as I sit here looking at it I'm wondering if I need to move the baseline back to outside wall on that long overhang???

I did in the original here it is again. I appreciate your help 2differentoverhangeveproblem.plan

Yes Eric I have set the specifications as you have shown. It did not help

I have even tried taking the roof overhang area display and converting it to a CAD detail but the changes I made in the CAD detail do not modify in the drawing or camera overview. I don't know if maybe I could do something with a ceiling plane (I'm really reaching here!)

Yes Gene they do. Hence the reason for building an invisible wall. I tried it without the wall and played with it forever. The invisible wall did the job quickly and easily.

Eric you are correct. If the overhangs were equal say 18" they do connect. I proved that. My roof pitch Is 5:12, rafter. 3 sides of the building have an overhang of 24". The one overhang is 36" where I'm having the issue. I built an invisible wall on the exterior of the existing wall and set my baseline to that wall of 24" then deleted the wall to get my roof planes to build right. When I deleted the invisible wall(s) CA extended the soffit back to my original wall. Kudos. My roof plane baseline remains where the invisible was positioned. The result is as you see in the picture. I've rebuilt this in CA many different ways. Stuck

Thank you for the suggestion. It didn't help

Good morning to all. Onward with the learning curve. I'm currently working on a as-built drawing involving 2 different size overhangs on a house. It has a hip roof. Boxed eves. My problem is is getting the soffits to reset back to the house. I've done much research here in past threads not finding a similar issue. I believe it is being caused by the roof planes because of the 2 different overhang dimensions. The ridge is offset and does not cross at the wall corner intersection. I tried unlocking the roof overhang area layer, opening a cad detail and adjusting. I can't seem to get anything to work. I don't want to adjust the roof planes because that would not result what exists in the quote "Real World". Any help or thoughts would be deeply appreciated. Thank You. I'm currently using X9. Yes I know I need to update my signature block and will do that. But X9 Is working just fine on my computer and that is not the problem. 2differentoverhangeveproblem.plan

Just an update. I was able to accomplish the task within CA. It took a little research in the question and answers section and the help pages. I loaded a jpeg of the material after cropping it and then adjusting it in the materials definition. Thanks to all for the help

I believe I am agreeing with you. When I change the materials of the symbol to like concrete all works ok. It's the mortar joints in the texture that seem to be causing the problem. Can you recommend and image editing program? Could I use substance player?

Here is the example I'm referencing to. Please note that sill texture has mortar joints along with the symbol mortar joints. What I am looking to do is keep the symbol mortar joints and delete the graphic mortar joints. I sorry I will Update my signature block when I have a minute

Hello fellow users... I'm working on a drawing involving a brick pony wall. CA offers lots of brick textures which is great. I've created a symbol for soldier courses/ sills and that was no problem. The problem that I'm having is the mortar joints in the library graphic/material are showing up in the symbol. How do I eliminate the graphic mortar joints and keep the color and the texture? I'm using X9. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank You