AndrewSopher

11 minutes ago, chiefuserids said:

Chief 15X Created Foundation Pony Wall Upper Wall 5 1/2" /Lower Wall 10" Elevation of Lower Wall Top -26 1/8" to allow for plate and 11 7/8" I Joist.  

Lower Wall Layers (complies with OBC Sect.9) You will have to adjust the elevation of the lower wall top depending on the floor joist specifications. 

 

 

Lower Wall Specifications for my code

#1 Damp proofing 1/16-1/8" 

#2 Concrete 10"

#3 Air Space (code) 1"

#4 3 1/2 Stud Framing

#5 1/2" WB

 

Did you put the foundation on level 0 and the lower level/exposure on level 1?

17 hours ago, Renerabbitt said:

I did a seris on foundations in the VIP section of that site. what is your handle on there and I will mention you

My handle is drews2525, but I wasn't part of the VIP section. I will have to join that at some point first.

On 1/26/2024 at 1:22 PM, Renerabbitt said:

works well, its just showing your stem wall and footer/footing on floor 0. Much easier to show floor framing views or SOG and also way easier to do a full build out without messing with layer sets etc.
I do not have a video on this cept for in a paid part of my discord where I went over foundations. Surprised if there isnt one floating around somewhere on the net

I am a member on your discord. Where do I find the foundation video? 

1 minute ago, Renerabbitt said:

My foundation is on floor zero, walkout basements on floor 1...HIGHLY suggest this. You'll find that most of the power users that attend the advanced level  II in Idaho do it this way for a myriad of reasons

I do highly complex custom homes in Wisconsin, so a lot of houses have a full or half exposure basement. If you say have a half or full exposure basement, can you still have foundation on level 0 and the walkout/half exposure on floor 1? Is there a video reference of this somewhere? Right now I have it all on floor zero and it works pretty well for the most part but I am always looking to make improvements. Thanks.

I 100% agree. Because of the time I have invested in Chief I will remain with it for the foreseeable future, but do not get me wrong I am always looking for another software because I need more customization without doing silly workarounds. Chief has a good start on a lot of tools but they a lot of them need a big overhaul (windows, doors, stairs, deck, porches, foundation walls, roof eave/flush eave, small wall connections). Wish we could lean more into those tools/settings and less into the rendering and cabinets. I have made a lot of suggestions but it seems they do not listen to them. 

41 minutes ago, solver said:

 

How about a simple plan -- just 4 walls, showing the problem.

 

Here is what I see using the default wall types.

 

Thank you. Must be something on my end. Appreciate the response. 

I thought Chief had fixed the brick ledge/exterior wall material extensions/depth in x15. I cannot get them to work if they are in a pony wall. Example: I have real stone wainscoting with stucco above (pony wall) and a standard 9' foundation below and I want my brick ledge depth to be 24'' (where I want the grade to be). Is this a bug or not?

On 9/6/2023 at 8:29 AM, robdyck said:

Here's a video demonstrating the issue.

 

 

I have had this issue in multiple instances while in elevation view. It is like it does not want to stay snap onto the object and wants a skew angle. 

38 minutes ago, solver said:

You have a pony wall that is brick above and concrete below, and you want to show a brick ledge in the concrete?

Yes, that is correct. The brick ledge does not generate when I use a pony wall. This is essentially what I am trying to achieve. 

Hello, 

I have been working on a plan and have a walkout basement that is a 2x6 wall with 5'' stone. When I create the foundation pony wall with stone or brick I cannot get the program to properly use the brick ledge function. I have even tested it out in a completely new plan and it seems that when there is a pony wall in the foundation Chief will not generate the brick ledge (in this case I want it to be 8''). I know I can auto detail cross sections and get it to look correct but on the elevations they are not (and if I lower the pony wall 8'' then it moves the whole framed wall 8'' and not just the brick ledge.  Has anyone ran into this problem or have a solution? Thanks! 

On 8/24/2022 at 10:14 AM, DRAWZILLA said:

looks like a white ledgestone type material to me.

Thank you, I could see that, its hard to tell with just a picture but I appreciate your input. 

9 hours ago, jasonn1234 said:

No,

 

I align the fascia per Micahel_Gia's note.

 

The truss details I have seen from a truss company are filled with 16's of an inch measurements. I specify the heel height based on CA's Truss detail, by taking a p2p measurement from that detail. This gives the truss company everything they need to know, heel height, pitch, dimension from wall to wall from normal floor plan, and eave dimension.

 

However, I have had calls from the truss guy asking if the eave dimension is from the top plate edge, or from the sheathing, and does it include the sub fascia, fascia. But some contractors like the truss to end at the sheathing, so, i have a note leaving it to them to figure out the eave/overhang portion. The critical measurement here is to outside of fascia, as there are building code regulations to property line.

 

And from talking to framers on the "where to land the subfascia/fascia", it is not exactly like the pictures, they will line up the corners one way or another, and some of it is not pretty

 

You should also check out the Build roof dialog on how to maintain same height eaves:

 

• Check Same Height Eaves to keep the eave height for all roof planes the same. Roof planes are raised and lowered as needed so that eaves meet correctly.
  
  The eave height used when this box is checked is that of a roof plane using the default Pitch and Overhang values. When this box is checked, all roof planes are affected, including those that do not need adjustment in order to align with adjacent planes.
  
  When Same Height Eaves is checked, any non-default overhang values specified in the Wall Specification dialog are used. Roof planes are raised or lowered so that the eave height is the same, regardless of the horizontal overhang.

 

Thanks so much for sharing, I will take what you said into account for matching eave and fascia heights!

I see what you mean, I talked to our other designer and he said he cheats a little bit with that overhang and keeps the heel heights at 12'' and 24'' and they make a field adjustment so the fascia and sub fascia matches up. Is that what you would do or have done in the past? 

8 minutes ago, jasonn1234 said:

no it is not a bug, if you set the eave inside of the facia to be 1'6 and measure the top side of the rafters with a line accross, ti will match

 

I did this out on cad showing the heel heights of the 4/12 and 12/12 roof pitch. The other designer I work with uses auto cad and also did the same thing to for his heel heights, not sure where I went wrong?

11 minutes ago, jasonn1234 said:

yes, CA measures to outside of fascia. you can see the 1'6" above. I think I logged a support request indicating the doc was incorrect a few months ago

I see the 1'6'' above, interesting, so the bug is that the fascia board is going 3/16'' into the roof sheathing? 

10 minutes ago, jasonn1234 said:

i have not checked but my guess is because the top of fascia board goes to somewhere in the roof sheathing. on the right, top of fascia aligns to middle of rood sheathing, on the left, it aligns to bottom

 

 

So the heel height is correct for 12 and 24 and this is more of a bug ? 

7 minutes ago, para-CAD said:

Thickness of your fascia.  If you are calculating to the face of sub-fascia or tails, the thickness of the fascia will show up if the elevation is only seeing the outside face of the fascia. 

Yes, I am measuring to the sub fascia. So the reason it is off is because chief is calculating to the thickness of the fascia for the overhang ? 

12 minutes ago, jasonn1234 said:

 

Yes that appears to be the reason. if you draw a line across in a cross section, you can see the difference. 1/2" for the sub fascia and 3/16" for the fascia

 

 

 

f 

 

What would you do for a solution? I want the heels to be a friendly number? Is there really a solution to this ?

7 minutes ago, jasonn1234 said:

I just added 12" and changed my pitch to 12:12 and get your same result

 

my guess is it due to the fascia board dropping for the change in pitch.

That must be it!

Just now, jasonn1234 said:

 

Where are you specifying the heel height in CA?

I do it in the baseline height (but before I do it I make sure ahead of time that my roof dialogues are set up for trusses and not rafters). But I take the top plate in this case 218 7/8+12'' heel. And then 218 7/8+24'' heel for the 12/12 pitch. This almost always works out for the most part but it isn't in this case which is confusing. 

Just now, Michael_Gia said:

Just lock the pitch and enter the top of fascia height. 
 

If you try doing the math you’re going to have a really bad day.  Not worth it. 
 

Unless I misunderstood you, you seem to be asking that your fascias line up in an elevation view, right?

Yes, I definitely see what you are saying. But I guess what I am getting at is the fascia lines should match up with those heel heights unless I am missing something? I definitely could be wrong though!

I am not sure if this is a bug but I wanted to see if anyone else is running into this same problem. I want my fascia lines to match up on varying roof pitches. My 4/12 pitch is set for a 12'' heel. The 12/12 pitch should have the same fascia lines with a 24'' heel (assuming they are both 1'6'' overhangs). My roof lines look good on the floor plan but when I take elevations you can see very slightly that the 4/12 pitch fascia line is 3/16'' lower than the 12/12 pitch. The fascia and sub fascia's of the roof planes are both the same and so is the roof overhangs. I worked out the math with Cad lines so I know the heel heights are correct. Does anyone have any solutions to this or did I miss something with my math?

27 minutes ago, rgardner said:

Most likely they used the smooth (some may use textured) "soffit" material on the face and then built up from there around it with the trim, added necessary flashings, caulking and paint...  Pretty standard stuff really.

Thanks so much!

36 minutes ago, solver said:

 

How could anyone know this?

 

I'd be asking a local quality builder as various materials might be used an many will be specific to your region and how things get built.

I am simply asking for a guess. I had my guess so I was hoping to get some more input. No need to be rude about it. 

24 minutes ago, rgardner said:

Looks like Painted Trim.  Whether it is a primed whitewood, hardi trim or LP Smartside trim would be up to the designer to specify.   Flat portion most likely is a hardi or smartside non textured soffit material.  All site caulked & painted.

Thank you! So how do you think they achieved the recessed part of it?