Jay_on_Cape

It looks like it was originally drawn in CA.

On 2/10/2020 at 6:37 PM, designsbyday said:

Hi Skip,

 

My kitchen designer fits your requirements, but she's not on ChiefTalk.

 

Two questions:

 

How can she get in touch with you?

 

Where on the cape?

 

 

George is in South Yarmouth.   He's a good guy.  I've done work for him in the past for whole house design. 

I'm up the road from you.  What do you have?

You should probably specify contract / hourly, remote in area / out of area etc.   In this area CA users are few and far between.

Holy vent pipe Batman!  Are there any bedrooms in that house or just bathrooms??

One important fact to keep in mind is that window above.  You may not get enough slope in the shed roof to be able to use shingles in which case you'll have to use a rubber / TPO etc. roof.  It may work but there needs to be a whole lot more info before you can receive legitimate suggestions.

I've been using the new online Forte.  I can't seem to find the cut angle at end of beam (for rafter) in it.  I wonder if they missed it?  It used to be in the hole tab in BC. 

3 minutes ago, Joe_Carrick said:

That's actually 8"R/9"T with a 1" nosing.  It was allowable for private stairs in the UBC and for existing homes that would generally be grandfathered with the current IRC - but only for existing stairs. 

In MA they still let you get away with 8.25".....

See page 16.  We use the 2015 IRC in MA and anything they want changed they address it in their codebook with corresponding code number to pertinent IRC # (or IBC if commercial). 

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/06/08/Chapter 3 Building Planning Amendments.pdf

What do you use for steel I-beam design?  Rams?

Attached are a couple recent I-joist plans with beam all in accurate profile framing members.

In MA it's 8.25" rise and 10" finished run.  So they cut the stringers to 9" and with the overhang it's 10".  With the stud height / floor joist depth most residential stairs are usually in the 7 7/8" - 8 1/8" range.  If you add another tread it will bring it down to 7 5/8" or so.

With all the antique homes here it's not unusual to go into a home with 8"-9" rises or more. 

Commercial of course is quite a bit different.

I use the autobuild joist option to frame joists just to get the rimboard.  I set the o.c. spacing to 96" as you can't set it any higher.  I then delete all joists and place them where I want from a starting point I want (also use the framing reference marker).  If you get all of the joists / beams in the correct spot there is less to detail.  Roof rafters and roof trusses almost always have to be detailed in a cad detail.  I don't use live cameras for my cross sections.  I know I'll get heat for that but usually the people bringing the heat have no idea how to frame or how it will be framed in the field..........

I was an EWP designer for 4 years under a structural engineer and back then (1999) I actually used CA version 8 for doing the structural floor plans for a major lumber yard.  BC Framer wasn't quite up to snuff at that point.  It can be done, I do it every day but I'm sure there are easier ways.  I size all my beams / joists / rafters as I'm working on the framing plans to make sure that the cross sections are accurate.  At present I use Strucalc for steel and Forte for wood.  I was a long time user of Boise Calc but they switched over to an online only version in January and ...........it wasn't smooth (insert extreme sarcasm / understatement here).....

10 minutes ago, solver said:

After changing the material, try this to paint a color.

 

Thanks Solver!!!!  I did finally found it after a couple hours of searching.  I was too intent on doing it in the dbx.  I didn't realize you had to do it in 3d.

Hello All,

  I've searched  and I can't seem to find the obvious.  How does one use a manufacturer color AND texture.  For example how does one use the Mastic Home Exteriors texture (Board and Batten) and assign one of the colors to it?  I can do one or another but not both.  Thank you in advance.  As you can tell I usually do construction documents and rarely bother with renders.

2 hours ago, EconBlueprints said:

    

     By the way, after building hundreds and hundreds of homes, having done who knows how many blueprints, having been to see a gazillion building inspectors....I still have not found one single person that considers a mud sill to be part of the foundation.  It is and always has been part of the framing.  Only Chief thinks a Mud Sill is part of the foundation.

Preach it brother, preach it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On 1/31/2019 at 2:26 PM, woodcraftdesign said:

The top cord bearing floor truss can be a good tool for lowering the level of access to the home.  You can bring grade up to 11.25 inches Below Floor Rough.  with a step out of the door of 6" a step off the deck or porch of six inches, you are at grade.  But you still have the benefit of trusses for your spans and mechanical.  

Or for burying beams so they don't hang down.  Although careful or you'll cut off access for pipes / drains.

What part of MA?  Someone may be in your neighborhood.

On 2/3/2019 at 12:27 PM, lmkdesign said:

Harwichport near Chatham

I have to meet a Harwich builder on Wednesday if you ever want to talk.  I'll be there 1st thing in the morning.

15 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

Is there something in the water?  It seems like we’re seeing examples of people using those gable into gable drainage hazards about once a week this days.  

I draw my own plans but if I just was a builder and didn't draft them and a designer came to me with one of those water / snow traps I'd fire them.  You see a ton of them in GA.  If I had a penny for every garage I've seen down there with a gable across the entire face of the garage that dies into the gable wall of a house......

9 hours ago, lmkdesign said:

Looking for someone to do an As Built in Chief in the Cape Cod area

I'm in and around the Cape.  How far down Cape?

31 minutes ago, solver said:

 

I don't follow Jay. That may be done when you change the wall type.

I'm still running on X8 knowledge.........I see they added the dialog box.  Excellent!!!! although you have to do the math...........

4 hours ago, Joe_Carrick said:

Resize  (change the width) of the image column.

Essentially, the text is a fixed size based on the Text Style.  What you are seeing is that the image is too large and the rows are increased accordingly.  By reducing the width of the image column you get the rows to be smaller and the text appears to be larger on the screen.  When the Schedule is sent to layout at scale, the text will be the size you expect.

Thanks Joe!!! Better but still far smaller than I would like.  I will use it on some occasions.  Mostly I suspect I'll just turn off the image column to get a better looking schedule for simpler homes.

37 minutes ago, Joe_Carrick said:

There are 2 possibilities:

1. Change the Text Style being used (this should be "Schedules") to edit the actual text size.
2. Set the images to:  "Scale Images" and adjust the width of that column.

My preference is #2.

This only changes the size of the whole schedule.  The text remains the same proportion shown on my attached jpeg.  
I have scaled images checked already.  

So everyone that uses the door / window schedules has it look just like the one I posted?  I think that is completely unacceptable....

25 minutes ago, ShaneK said:

Highlite schedule, open dbx, select text and modify

That just changes the whole schedule size.  The text doesn't change in proportion to columns / rows or image.  I'm in X10.....

Hello All,  I'm just starting to migrate into X10 (yeah, I know) from x7 - x8.   Two things right off is the roof join tool is a small fraction as effective as in previous version.....

But to my question regarding text size in schedules.  I thought I've tried every combination in the text style / size dialog boxes.  I can't seem to figure it out.  I searched the forum and nothing on it other than Joe's comment about he'd like control over header sizes.  Is there a way to increase text size in regards to the image?  Thanks.

I did a few townhouse buildings (6-8 units in each) about 12 years ago in version 10 (not X10).  Each unit had a different floor height as it was on sloping land.  What a nightmare, and I can't overstate it enough......I suspect CA is more stable in that regards now but I had rooms / units constantly jumping around as far as ceiling heights go...

5 hours ago, Joe_Carrick said:

Several years ago I tried writing a set of Ruby macros to "Label/Check" structural members for approximate sizes vs the Chief Default members.  It worked but only as a quick-check / starting point to make sure the size in the dbx was close to what would be needed.  

 

I decided to get StruCalc and have been fairly happy with it - but I'm probably going to upgrade to the "Vitruvius" Project.  I just need to verify that I really need it and/or that it's going to provide additional functionality.

 

IAE, having a decent structural calculation app is well worth it for anyone licensed to sign structural calcs.

Did you see the pricing for the new product?  A little steep.......It should work much better than the past few versions for that kind of money....