CJSpud

I "think" I agree with Gene.

If your shade is suppose to look like a lamp shade, use a 2nd cone with slightly smaller dimensions, combine them (same center axis) and then do a subtraction of the smaller diameter cone from your larger diameter flat topped cone.

Dermot: Thanks for the tip on breaking the stairs etc. I think it would be nice if that disconnect tool showed up next to the stairs edit tools in the edit tool bar. I don't think I've ever used that tool before. Nevertheless, that's a great way to edit a stairs.

I have found USGS maps on line with contours for the areas where some of my projects were located. Unfortunately, there are no elevations data bases the way I've used those maps. I just rescale them as best I can and then recreate the elevation contours using elevation lines and points. Keep in mind that unless you can get a 7.5 minute map, the contour intervals are large. If the area is not very steep, this method is more or less useless, especially if the property isn't very big.

Or maybe use the landing tool. Put it at whatever elevation it needs to be. Then you can use the Alt key to draw the stairs from the deck down to the landing and the same for the stairs from the landing either down to the ground or down to another landing etc.

You could even create a lampshade.

Doug: For stairs that need to be code compliant, I am still wondering why the min/max values you are suggesting couldn't be hard coded in the software. But, if other countries have different standards, then maybe that is not a good idea. I am reasonably happy with the way the tread depths and riser heights work at this time. I've got a hunch that there won't be too many users that will want to change this functionality of the stair tool ... but it never hurts to try. Maybe your ideas will lead to even something better as I think the stairs tools are regularly being looked at for improvements.

Mick: Your findings seem to mirror mine. Not a real big deal to change the number of treads once you place the stairs. Seems like they could fine tune the coding to allow you to spec the number of treads. I won't be losing any sleep over that aspect of the stairs tools though.

Doug: It works for me. Riser height is dependent on the number of treads. With the bullet in "Lock Tread Depth", if you input a different default tread depth, the value you input should hold once you close the dialog and then place a stairs in the plan. One thing I did notice is that when changing the tread depth value (with the bullet for Lock Tread Depth" still selected), if I also change the number of treads from 17 (seems to be a default setting - I am using a 109.125 ceiling height) to some other value, and then click in the plan to place a new stairs, the number of treads for the stairs changes to back to 17. I then have to manually change the number of treads to what I want. I guess I've never noticed this before and it seems like it might be something that should be changed but I think I'd want to play with it a little more to see why Chief makes it work that way. When I change the number of treads before closing the dialog, I can see whether or not the number of treads I have inputted makes the stairs out of compliance with the code mandated 7.75" maximum riser height. Seems to me like changing the number of treads as well should work as long as it is within code requirements.

Me too.

The type of return you want to make is a "hip" return. Select your gable wall and under the roof tab, make your return settings hip and you should get close to what your are trying to duplicate.

Assumptions can get you in trouble sometimes. I have seen contractors in my area who don't do kickout flashing so you would "assume" that if you put it on the plans, that it would get built that way. I've put things on plans that do not get done that way, so you realistically you can't assume too much. As they say ... "the devil is in the details" ... !

If you change to something like Steve's possible solution, I would recommend one or two details in your plans showing step flashing and a kickout flashing where the roof plane/gutter meets the (a) gable wall.

Just placed a roof plane manually against the side of the gable wall and then manipulated the ends for a 45 miter. Make sure to match your fascia height with the adjoining roof planes. I agree with Chris .... your roof should drain just fine as designed.

Everything I see are gable roofs. You have some "valleys" where gable roofs perpendicular to each other intersect (e.g., the red valley in your last image) but no hips anywhere. I call the roof style in your second picture a full return ... but it probably is called other things by other folks in different parts of the country or world. I don't really understand everything you were trying to say regarding issues or what you are trying to fix. So I just went into your plan and cleaned up some of the roof planes you didn't figure out yet, did some chimney work for you (added the 4th wall above the roof; added a chimney cap from the library; and added a cricket), put a roof on your porch and added a couple of full returns to a couple of gables. Another way to create that look is by using a dormer but I will let you research how to do that in chiefs videos, knowledge base and/or anywhere else they may have covered it. A zipped file of your plan is attached. Make sure you analyze some of the roof plane connections I fixed as they can be a little tricky when your starting out with Chief and doing things manually. I like to do as much automatically in building roofs. The easiest way to do that is to make sure the exterior wall roof settings are correct for each wall a roof plane will bear on. I didn't look at anything on the interior of your plan so if there are issues in there, I didn't look for them and honestly don't have time to do that today. Good luck ... hope what I've done is some help to you. 326375991_Dugan8D.zip