ChiefRushT

Thank you Jo_Ann. I have a wall that has one butting roof, and one overhanging roof (one above the other). Looking down the wall, the lower butting roof is on the left, and the higher overhanging roof is to the right. The higher roof is actually over a patio. The right side of the wall should be board and batton top to bottom. The left side of the wall should be drywall below the butting roof, and board and batton above the butting roof. So my challenge is I have different surfaces below the butting roof, and same surfaces above the butting roof. I can't figure out how to make that happen. It's a single story residence with vaulted ceilings from the shed roof style. I hope that helps. Russ

Good morning all, I've been struggling with the best practice for a wall I have. One side I have is fully exterior. Above a roofline, the interior side becomes an exterior side as well (I have different interior heights with overlapping shed roofs). What's the best way to manage this? I've been using 'Lower wall type if split by butting roof' with some success, but this particular wall seems to have me baffled. Also, I have occasion where the feature just doesn't seem work at all. Does HDP care if the wall is defined as exterior or interior, and does the butting wall only need to touch the wall, cross over the exterior surface, or cover the whole thickness of the wall? Does it care what side the butting roof comes from? Last question: I'm planning on using 6.5" SIPs for my exterior walls, but standard 4" walls with my interior walls. I struggle with this since the ground floor wall displays at 6.5" thick on the diagrams. Is there a best practice for this too? I switched for a while just deciding to do an equivalent 6.5" wall below in these sections. But that seems wasteful of space and material. Thanks in advance for any pointers. Russ

Hey folks, thank you for the help so far. I'm still not exactly sure what the issue is/was. In the picture, you can tell that the issue is related to the left side roof plane. The 'open to below' room is symmetrical to the midline, so its settings should apply to both roof planes. Both roof planes had identical settings. I discovered that the left side roof plane did not have a valid 'top of plate' measurement. I deleted it and copied/reflected the working right side roof plane to the left, and now both seem to be OSB. So at least we're consistent now. Then, I followed Jo_Ann's recommendation, which solve the final piece of the puzzle. Thanks everyone! Making more progress.

The left roof plane shows the osb layer, the right roof plane shows the soffit material which I have set to some planking. The view here is from the first floor looking through the second floor opening, to the second floor roof. Notice that left side shows OSB, right side shows planking. Yet, settings for both roof planes are identical. Appreciate the consideration.

I'm working on a design for our next home build. It'll be a hybrid timber frame, and I'm trying to use 'use soffit surface for ceiling' to create the effect of planking for the ceiling. I have a celestory style upper floor with a 'catwalk' on either side side. The second floor has a room that's 'open below'. The two roof planes have identical settings. For the life of me, I can't seem to get both roof planes to show the planking at the same time. I'm early in the process and just getting structure down, so just ignore the aesthetics for now please Thoughts anyone? <edit> HDP2024

It's a good product, and I give them the credit due for that effort. For me, and I suspect other users in the same 'class' I am, I will have to make decisions. I've been on it since 2017 I think, upgrading every other year or so. And yes, I fully understand that the perpetual license I currently have is only as good as CA is about honoring that. I suspect that since the software 'phone's home' to check on license availability, they could actually shut me down if they wanted to. But the point others have made too, is that the switching costs remain real, but are now augmented by the added pain of the 'non-permanency' of their work product. Leasing models and the neutering of paid products is terribly frustrating. Example: I paid for the Ergatta upgrade to my water rower. In the past 6 months, I've switched my workout technique to be exclusively HIIT. I have little need for the online live activities, really nice video themes, and interactive games. But if you drop the subscription, you lose access to being able to program intervals. You only get time or distance. There's a reason marketers and 'pricing engineers' get paid well. Maybe a compromise solution that would have worked would be: If you already own a CA product, you can continue purchasing perpetual license upgrades. If you're new to the suite, you only get leasing options. The ol' grandfather pitch with a twist. Frustrating for me, is that we're now at a point where I'm truly trying to design our forever home for a build in the next 1-2 years, and I'm unwilling to move to a product that won't let me 'shelf my work' and pull it out 4-5 years later for an addition if I need to. No... I have to stay subscribed the whole time. So I work on 2024 (sad I missed the 2025 notice of last perpetual). Anyhow, I think I have an actual design question I'm stumped by, so I'll go post that.

For what it's worth, I've been using the Pro version for 6-7 years, upgrading roughly every other year. If the subscription model would let you cancel and keep the latest version in perpetuity, I would be on board with a subscription. The fact that I can pay a subscription rate that basically equals what my annualized upgrade rate was, and then have to fall back to 3 versions ago if I cancel my subscription is probably a deal breaker for me. There's little to no loyalty towards customers that have voluntarily continued to contribute dollars to the product. Make it mandatory, and we get frustrated and make do with our current version, or go looking elsewhere.