ebdesign

Are you referring to the "tilde"?

Are the 3 layers of your ICF wall grouped together as a single main layer? How is the upper wall defined- main layer? Can you post a screen cap of both wall defs?

See attached. X6 rules!! .........until X7 comes out.

Ubet Michael. Glad it helped you out. Refreshed my memory too. Not too sure about the OP though.

Make sure your walls are at default top hgt. Once wall top/bot is dragged up/down, you own them until you restore the default; even if you drag them back to where they were.

It's not my "method". It's Chief recommendation how to draw custom ceilings. If you don't do it the recommended way, you can't be all that surprised when it gets confusing. However, as long as you understand the #'s in the dbx, you can do it either way you want. Primarily, the difference between having the ceiling plane & baseline over the wall or not is mainly how the ceiling will frame. Done Chief's way, ceiling joists will frame over the wall top; which is almost always what I want. The difference between the outside bottom & inside bottom hgts is the total rise across the wall main layer (5.5") for the spec'd pitch. No matter where you draw the cl'g, Chief assumes it's over a wall top & gives you those numbers accordingly. So, if you don't draw it like that, the outside bot hgt would be what you use. when I edited your cl'gs over the Game Room (& the room def) to the recommended setup, I got exactly what you're looking for. This is my understanding of how it works. I sent you an email/message thru Chieftalk. I tried your 'todd@hawkshallow.com' email & had it returned- "domain name not found". I'll be glad to review this w/ you in a GTM or Skype session.

Custom cl'gs do come in at the cl'g hgt that is spec'd in the room dbx that they are drawn over. .........when they're drawn properly.

133 3/4"(your defined flr hgt) + 60"(your desired wall hgt) = 193 3/4". If the cl'g was drawn as suggested, that value would be entered in the "Inside Bottom Hgt" field & it would be what you want. I didn't make this up. Watch the training videos.

The cl'g plane is exactly where the dbx says it is.

No, it wasn't. Your ceilings were drawn to the inside finished surface of the walls & the baseline is over the inside of wall main layer.

Wasn't disputing that at all, Michael. Just a suggestion for future.

Try drawing custom cl'g planes just like roofs, with cl'g baseline & lower edge line over the outside edge of the wall main layer. Then set & lock the pitch & define "Inside Bottom Hgt". This should solve your problem.

If you don't want to raise the roof & want the wall plate to stay the same hgt, isn't your only other option to adjust the rafter depth? Or move the entire roof plane (inc the baseline) relative to the wall? but that is- in effect- moving the roof plane up/down.

Directly above the wall below will not prevent you from using an auto dormer, but the two main roof planes will. Put the barrel dormer in a single roof plane & then explode it so you can move the parts. I like to place the auto dormer a known distance from it's final position so that I can move the parts where they go via direct entry. You will also need to edit the main roof planes. The ability to explode them is what makes auto dormers such a great tool.

The auto dormer tool has 9 different dormer types to select from. It's a great way to start, even if none of them are exactly what you want. The OP's image would be a barrel dormer that can be sized & positioned exactly & then exploded if necessary to make final tweaks. If you start w/ an auto-dormer & then explode it, all the "parts" are present &, more importantly, properly defined.

I get it when I have a 3D object on the clipboard & try to paste it into a CAD detail. I also get a similar dbx in other programs when I have something other than text on the clipboard.

I did double-check that statement just before I posted it. But maybe you can find an exception. I'll wait for your confirmation.

You can use a "general framing member", size it, place it wherever, put it on any layer. Chief ignores general framing members when auto framing.

Ted, I used to work for a truss company in the design dept too. 27yrs ago, Florida. Was just a flunky, but got to see how it all came together.

Not the trusses, Scott. Although I suppose you could build them in a "shadow plan" as you call it. I was referring to tricky roof planes or roofs that have changed after you have done all the editing, can't rebuild roof framing & to manually reframe that area would be a PIA. You can create a copy of the plan w/ the new roofs, let Chief build the framing, which will rebuild all the roof framing, but you only copy/paste/hold the framing you need back to the real plan. My way? Your way? We are both saying the same thing. Get your roofs & ceilings right & the framing takes care of itself (including manually built trusses)........ for the most part. I was just offering a simple basic sequence that I found works well for me. Get your roofs & cl's right. build the trusses auto frame the roofs & cl'gs disable auto framing & manually edit as needed. I wasn't disagreeing w/ you at all. Sorry if it came across like that.

Lee, I sometimes have trouble locating anything in a CAD detail. & it's worse in the Site Plan because nothing is usually orthogonal. When I encounter that, I use the point2point dimension, make it parallel to whatever I'm trying to dimension & then try & locate what I'm after. If I still can't get it, I move the points into place & use them. I only use a floor outline polyline at perimeter of foundation wall or wall main layer for the plan footprint- no walls or roofs displayed. I don't need to show anything else so that is probably why I can dimension to it. I also display line lengths on the floor outline polyline so I don't have to dimension the building; just the distance from bldg to PL.

I "save in plan" always, unless I forget, which bites me eventually. Other than overall file size, I don't think there are any drawbacks, unless you have a LOT of them in a plan; then performance will definitely be affected. pdfs seem to be bigger than image files generally. Often I will screen capture just what I want from a pdf & save it as an image & then bring into Chief.

Nice one Glenn. Gotta remember that one.

I don't think the slight off angle should make any difference. IMOFWIW. The fact that they displayed correctly as drawn for Rob & I would support that. Lot/ property lines are often not orthogonal & perpendicular to each other or even the current displayed view. My best guess would be a Chief malfunction of some sort or video driver problem. I have seen this before in a CAD detail, but they were dimensions that were drawn in plan view & part of the imported plan footprint. That's what I thought it was until I saw the plan. Lee is using the plan footprint feature in a CAD Detail. That is the best way to do site plans, IMO. That is what the plan footprint was created for primarily. Then you can draw your lot w/ north at the top (or whatever direction you want), rotate & position the footprint on the site however you like. You can also dimension to its perimeter. Do whatever you want w/ the terrain back in plan. You can also have separate CAD defaults set up specifically for site plans that are always there, regardless of the CAD defaults back in plan. I also just noticed that you have imported the plan footprint twice. 1st & 2nd flr. Hmmm...........

Last time I used the "Truss Base" tool, it worked. That can help w/ overframing too. I have had "issues" w/ trusses occasionally, so just make it a symbol & put it on the truss layer. So I'll back away from the moon reference. But, the sun is down & it's almost time to eat. Sorry.