Michael_Gia

There’s quite a few sites that have downloads for all kinds of street markings in cad format. Just import those into Chief?

Your fascia top heights should match if you want a clean roof plane join. If you drag your soffit in plan view by stretching the soffit edge instead of moving the roof plane then you'll change your fascia top height. Move the planes so they line up where you want in plan view first and then join the roof valleys. This way you won't be changing the fascia top height.

...next few months?

2 weeks and you already got a chimney cap and vent? Bravo. I'd send the plan or a modified plan keeping the problem area and deleting everything else. Somebody on here will provide the proper way to handle these issues and not simply a quick and dirty work around.

Unfortunately you are wrong sir. Scott Hall did a video about this a while ago. He exhausted all possibilities, and along with colourful language, he demonstrated that the horizontal aspect fails when you move the object you’re pointing to. You're demonstration only works if you are only moving the text box. (great video by the way, but please kill the music)

I'm able to dimension to all lines in your test.pln, even the terrain lines, so I'm not sure what you're having a problem with?

I really just wish that first part of the line could be locked at a horizontal angle regardless of how I move the text or the item I’m pointing to.

When you click on a line is it being highlighted as a polyline? If not then you probably just have a raster image, I'm guessing. Your conversion app might not really be producing vectors from the pdf source.

I think the real question is where your carpenters are placing the sill plate. This determines where your floor is built, which provides the ledge for your brick veneer, air space etc… My brick veneer usually overhangs past the foundation by at least 5/8”. But, of course this means you have to be careful that you dimension to the right layer if you want your exterior dimension of your foundation to agree with the floors above. (If you want to get picky)

Have you tried a scaled model in Lego?

Here’s the video. Skip to 17:43. Snappable extension lines and rotatable dimension values. Nice to see but they sure are bringing this stuff out one bread crumb at a time. https://register.gotowebinar.com/recording/recordingView?webinarKey=6504698007979730955&registrantEmail=michaelgia%40me.com

Everyone taking about crickets and water issues etc. but nobody is mentioning that there needs to be a beam under that short wall to carry the brick. I get these conditions a lot in the homes I build. I’m actually thankful for these finishing anomalies in Chief because they are usually a red flag for something not built or designed right. You need a beam resting on your garage facade wall and span towards the back of the garage so the brick layer can build a short knee wall out of cement block to accommodate the brick veneer above the roof line. Of course as everyone mentions, waterproofing is delicate there but doable.

The room below on floor 1 is defined with an invisible wall in line with the railing wall above on floor 2. The room next to the railing room on floor 2 is designated as "open below" to get the cathedral ceiling. Build your floor and ceiling framing to the specs that reflect your construction. Open the Dialoge Box for the Room on floor 1 and delete the ceiling finish in the structure tab. This will expose those floor joists above.

I think he means Gothic-arch Barn. Same shape as Chief's Gothic arch window. Create Barrel Roof is your search query.

All very noble of you and you also provided OP with the right solution to his problem as you often do and I appreciate that as much as anyone. I just wish you guys in that upper clique on this forum would stop defending and do a little whining yourselves sometimes. Always coming to the defence of Chief isn’t scoring you any brownie points with them and it just keeps them from potentially working on our grievances. This of course is my perception all within the four walls of my brain so I might be imagining things... like someone in Chief is actually following along and taking notes, but that’s how I see it. This particular problem is huge and glaring. They should be ashamed to call the program chief Architect. Where’s the architect part, I’m asking myself sometimes? Chief Decorator, maybe?

Step 1) Let me generate a cross section so I can dimension and accurately locate an item on a different plane from the floor plan. Step 2) Let me generate another static 2D view of that newly generated cross section so I can now locate that item. Step 3) Let me copy a cad line or point from that newly generated static 2D view of that prior generated cross section view and paste it back into the 1st generated cross section view of that plan. Step 4) let me measure the distance of those 2 static points I copied to see where those 3d items were drawn that I was trying locate in the first place in that cross section. Step 5). All is normal and fine in Chief world. As long as we’re all alright with all of that then I guess I’m the crazy one.

This issue of not being able to snap a dimension line in a cross section or elevation view is sickening at this late stage of Chief’s development. An architectural drafting program that can’t locate stuff? “Oh, but let’s develop some more new useless pretty-picture-stuff. We can sell more subscriptions that way. Screw our existing customers. Sounds good boss.” Overheard at a Chief developers meeting, possibly.

In the Project Browser of the X12 Residential Template Plan.

You built your framing and then you moved that window over a smidgen, hence the framing poking through. rebuild the framing like Joey said above.

The image below is what I would prefer. Because that space between the top of the footing and the floor structure is actually buried in the floor structure and not obvious to everyone. Why not make it obvious? Right now you have to go back and forth to set your stemwall or do arithmetic before hand. I think the litmus test of any DBX is, "if the user has to do even the simplest arithmetic then the DBX has failed". I know seasoned Chiefers can snicker at newbies, but remember when you were in that position?

I think the only confusing item is the behaviour of the stemwall value. The fact that depending on which order you enter values in the “Relative Heights” section of the Dbx you get different results. Other than that, the newly introduced highlighting of the graphic when you hover your mouse over the input boxes pretty much demystifies the whole process. Still feels clunky though.

A few important things to keep in mind. The stemwall height includes the thickness of the sill plate, so do the math for that. When you enter a rough ceiling height this value will push the footings and floor down, as in away from your absolute “0” level. So regardless of the value you specified for stemwall, it is the ceiling height that will take precedence. Your “Rough Ceiling Height” plus your “Floor Structure” will give you the proper stemwall height, PROVIDED the already entered stemwall height is less than that total value. That’s because even if the stemwall height is less the action of entering a ceiling height which is greater will have the effect of “pushing” down your footings and elongating your stemwall. In your screenshot you have a floor structure of 18-3/4” which I’m assuming is not what you want but I know for a fact that you got that by messing around with the stemwall height value. Don’t do that. If anything, just enter 0” for stemwall to reset the foundation height and then go back and re-enter the rough ceiling height which will then correct your stemwall height. Example: If you want a stemwall height of 104” with a floor structure of 4” then enter 100” for Rough Ceiling height and that will give you a stemwall of 104” including that pesky 1-1/2” sill. (providing your existing stemwall height is LESS than 104”). Crazy, I know. About that stupid sill plate; If you want 104” of concrete then enter 105.5”for rough ceiling height. This will give 1.5” sill plate slapped on top of a 104” stemwall. Afterwards, IF YOU PLAY AROUND with the stemwall height and enter 110” then you’ll see a gap of 6” between your floor and the top of your footing. Because your larger stemwall height value is pushing your footings down and leaving your floor “floating”. -> to correct that then just enter a stemwall height ridiculously lower than your ceiling height and then go back and re-enter the ceiling height to correct it. Experiment on a simple structure by splitting the screen with floor plan and cross section so you can see both. Add some visible cad lines at the proper heights in your cross-section so you can see the effect of this system in real-time as you experiment with different values. This explanation might have been convoluted but I wanted you to understand the quirks of this very convoluted system Chief has devised. However convoluted though, I can’t see any better solution which gives so much control over every aspect of the relative heights of a foundation. So I guess we’re lucky?

Sketchup

You’re asking for a guessing game unless you post the plan.

Now that’s encouraging to hear. If Revit Light had collaboration, it would be affordable but I can’t imagine the kind of expense to run multiple seats of Revit. $$$$