rlackore

Scaling works for me. Here is a screenshot - the left cube has the texture scaled at 96", the right cube has the texture scaled at 192".

Well, I did say I'm NOT a lawyer. This excerpt from an article by a real lawyer supports you're view (emphasis is mine): "In many construction projects, the owner, construction manager or contractor will contract with an architect or designer to design the project. Regardless of payment, if the contract does not state otherwise, the original architect or designer retains ownership of the copyrights and the purchaser merely obtains a non-exclusive license to use the plans for that particular construction project. This means that the owner and/or contractor do not necessarily have the right to use the purchased plans for any other projects and do not have the right to prevent the original designer from selling those same plans to other owners and/or contractors."

You have to pull the roof eaves back, then build a second floor.

This is my rudimentary, non-lawyerly understanding: you retain copyright to the drawings - the builder can't sell you drawings, but they can build from them as often as they like; think of like a book - the author retains copyright, but once I've purchased the book I can read it as many times as I want without having to pay the author another fee. However, I'm sure a good lawyer can prepare a contract that requires a separate fee per build - or you can raise your rate. To chime in on your rate - 27 cents is ridiculously low, even if you're just providing floor plans and four elevations. In my area even the cheapest drafters are getting over $1.00/sqft.

Works for me as long as the two lines are parallel - if they are off even fractions of a degree then it won't work.

Try my suggestion in post 5 - I believe you'll find that this setting controls how the wall is measured while drawing.

The CA X7 Reference Manual explains things in detail. For instance: A wall placed on a non-default layer and then specified as Invisible, however, will not move to the “Walls, Invisible” layer. This nugget may explain why a wall isn't changing to the Walls, Invisible layer when you check the tick-box. Also: If a wall is specified as No Locate in the Wall Specification dialog, it will be ignored by Auto Exterior Dimensions in floor plan view, as will any doors or windows placed in it.

You can control this here: ...when drawing your walls, the Resize About setting will control which side is being referenced.

Patterns only show up in vector view, so when in 3D change to vector view. If you are in standard view then you are seeing the Texture, not the Pattern.

Glen, it appears that the Create Hole option is only available for p-solids created in a particular view, IOW if you create it in plan view you can make a hole while in plan view, but not when you switch to elevation view.

Have you tried creating the "hole" p-solids in plan, then switching to elevation to position them correctly?

You can easily modify Perry's plan with some elevation lines and a terrain break: It would help if you could tell us how you intend to build. Is the main house slab-on-grade? Do you need frost-walls? Etc.

It might be easier to just lower the garage slab 36": ROOM SPECIFICATION>STRUCTURE>FLOOR©: -3'

I was attempting Yusuf's approach, but missed the Ray Count. I don't even know what Ray Count is for.

When hovering over an area with several potential snap points, hitting the TAB key (or similar) should allow us to "cycle" through the snap options. As we hit TAB, the snap icon changes so we have a visual indication of which snap point CA is referencing.

Here is tech supports answer: This is just the way the program is drawing it. If I close the room, (see screenshot) it actually shows a break in both walls and you get a good room definition. It is functioning well, but it confusing when you see different things when drawing. I will report this anomaly to our developers. Notice that they've turned on line widths, so the connection doesn't look too bad. Still, my issue isn't about room defs, it's about "the way the program is drawing it." We'll see what the developers can do.

I was able to reproduce this observation. Very strange. I didn't include this behavior in my support ticket - probably should have.

Same z-fighting result even if the sheathing is the SAME thickness as the exterior siding. Workaround is to fit the frame to the wall and increase the inset of the sash:

Here is the result of my unscientific experiment: It appears wall joined at 1 degree or less will not join properly. Add .01 degree, and the intersection heals successfully. I've sent this issue in to Tech Support.

My work-around has been to draw a curved wall and set the facet angle to 1 degree to match the window pitch. Unfortunately I can't use a curved wall for the two interior walls at the bottom of the plan.

That's interesting. Moving them doesn't work for me.

Hmm. They aren't connected for me. See the lines at the wall intersections on your screenshot? They shouldn't be there if the walls were properly joined, would they? Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. The walls ARE connected in that they share common end points. But the layers AREN'T cleaning up properly - those intersection lines shouldn't be there.

These walls that are drawn at a slight angle to each other won't join properly: I just tried this in X6 and have the same problem. Any suggestions would be appreciated. 15026.plan

Here's my final thought: not possible in Chief.

...or something like a clipping plane defined on a per-camera basis (this type of function has been discussed before).