DavidJames

I still think it's operating as it should. Unless I'm mistaken, the minimum heel height for trusses is 4"

Truss heel height is measured from the top of the plate, to the underside of the roof sheathing so the section drawing you provided looks correct

Hi Rob, It's been a while since I've used Sketchup, but I believe what's happening is that the model was "grouped". What you might have to do is open the file up in Sketchup, ungroup/explode it, then resave it. Importing this updated file into CA should allow you to assign different materials to different parts.

I believe this is typically done by providing a gap between the molding and the wall, rather than creating a hole in the molding itself. I would just grab the molding polyline and drag it back roughly 4" from the wall

Happens all the time to me lol. Glad it worked out for you

Hi Stephen, Try the following: Edit>Default Settings>Plan At the bottom, put a check next to "Show Living Area Label".

You're very welcome. Glad it worked out

Hi Ross, I tried editing the intersections and had success with the right side, however the left side doesn't seem to be working for some reason. One alternative solution is to take the interior vertical railings and duplicate the wall type.

Eric - try drawing the line on an angle and see what length it gives you.

No problem at all This particular design can be achieved by drawing the polyline solid in plan view, and then adjusting the extents in elevation view. While still in elevation view, you can then select the bottom of the polyline solid and break it into segments (using the "break tool" or F3) which will allow you to create an opening and adjust its shape to whatever you prefer aesthetically.

I would probably create the opening via Polyline Solid:

If there's any interest from users in this forum, I don't mind creating a tutorial on how I use Revit for residential work. You'd be surprised at how quick, easy, and headache-free Revit is to use once you get over the learning curve and you set up libraries (families) etc. Everything about the user experience is extremely polished and all the tools provided are a godsend. You'll never encounter strange anomalies with the software that will require "work-arounds" to fix the issue, nor will the software ever fight back. Everything just works, and works really well. Ultimately Revit is insanely powerful for design and you can do just about anything.

... I can still think of one way of being able to sell the license down the road... however it would cost a lot lol.

The only way the billed-per-hours-used model would work is if Chief received some major polishing and improvements. When I was using Chief solely for new-builds and renovation plans, I constantly encountered myself having to spend hours upon hours trying to figure out why the software was doing "x" when I wanted it to do "y". As the projects became more complicated, the frequency of issues I encountered also increased. It was incredibly frustrating. I can only imagine how much that frustration would get amplified if one was now having to spend money on those hours where there's almost zero productivity.

Depending on what your needs are and what you’re using Chief for, I would argue that Revit is a far better piece of software with FAR less headaches (if any). In 2019, I stopped using Chief for 99% of my projects and moved over to Revit. I wish I had made the jump sooner to be honest as I couldn’t be happier. The only projects that I’ll use Chief for are interior renderings as there’s nothing better and quicker on the market when it comes to building interior scenes (which I ultimately export to Lumion). With this new pricing structure, The potential new user will think long and hard about where they are going to invest their money… CA or the industry standard. In a lot of cases, I think they will choose the latter. That being said, I would imagine that any legacy users that were thinking about opting out of SSA this year are no longer even entertaining that idea and probably won’t for years to come.