Richard_Morrison

The hatching tool has been broken at intersections for many versions. It has been reported many times, and I always think that maybe THIS will be the version that corrects it. Yeah, maybe X16.

I can opine only on Archicad & Chief, but I've used both for about 25 years. If you want a program that has very few limitations as to design, then I would look closely at Archicad. However, it is not specifically geared towards residential or wood framing. Putting a model together takes more time than Chief, but once done, you have far more analyses available, like element conflict identification, structural/load analysis, and just about any tabulation you can imagine with mathematical functions included, if you wish. If you don't find what you need in the available object library, you can make your own without too much pain. The current version has design options (in the same model), energy analysis, and a very robust MEP facility with ductwork and plumbing. They've finally incorporated temporary dimensions like Chief, and Archicad has a push/pull capability with "morphs" just like Sketchup. There is a steep learning curve initially. Terrain is far more accurate than Chief's. Chief, on the other hand, will get mainstream residential projects out the door far faster, as long as you talking about polygonal rooms and "normal" roofs. I would not attempt modeling a hyperbolic paraboloid roof or tilted walls in Chief, for example, but Archicad could handle those easily. While Archicad can handle millions of polygons in a model without breaking much of a sweat, I would expect Chief to start choking at some point far earlier. To its credit, Chief has been catching up to Archicad in many respects, but there are still limitations. On the other hand, Chief's facility with wood framing and cabinets, as well as the stock products library, far exceeds Archicad. Also, I think a far shorter learning curve than Archicad. Although many seem to like it, you couldn't pay me enough to use Revit. I've used Sketchup, and it has its uses, but both Chief and Archicad seem more geared towards producing construction documentation and 2D details. (I am impressed with Nick Sonder's work, though.) I know nothing about Solidworks. I make more money using Chief since I don't bill hourly, but I feel more secure in the accuracy (up to 1/64th of an inch) and documentation with Archicad. Clients seem to prefer the 3D experience with Chief, and creating a 3D working environment along with renderings is far faster and easier (at least for me) in Chief. HTH. TL;DR -- Focus on Chief and Archicad.

It really doesn't, because it's based on intake area, not exhaust CFM. If you need 13 SF, then you may need to provide larger gable vents, vents at exterior rafter blocking, ridge vents, soffit vents, dormer vents, etc. There are number of options and you need to decide which works best with the structure and architectural style you are dealing with.

There is no "Industry wide" standard until you define which industry you are talking about. The planning department may want square footages calculated by the exterior surfaces or foundation footprint (and some count different features differently, like stairs, covered porches, or tall spaces), compliance with the building code may require square footages based on interior surfaces, your real estate agent may want square footages calculated another way, and there is also a BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) standard for commercial buildings. There is no "one" right way.

They are in MEP No. 3 Decorator Switches and Outlets (Bonus Catalog)

No one has bothered to say it, but putting six switches together in a single cover plate is an incredibly bad idea from the user's standpoint. Aside from looking ridiculous, NO ONE will ever remember which switch switches what light, and just about every use will be a trial and error and continually frustrating. If so many lights need to be controlled from one location, it's better to consider a scene controller, or at a minimum break the switch boxes up to a maximum of 3-gang each with some separation.

The Oregon Electrical Specialty Code 410.6 (which I'm guessing you're under) requires that all luminaires and lampholders be listed. Drawing something that you know is a Code violation is not something that either of you should be doing. If the fixture is listed (even if another listing besides UL), then no problem.

I'm not sure why we are continuing this discussion. A garage door is not an egress door, but the code is clear that you cannot swing a door (whether egress or non-egress, exterior or interior) OVER a stair. (Which is ONE riser, per the Code definition) I don't see this as even a gray area. But do whatever the hell you want. Darwin's law applies.

Michael, you need to be careful of the definitions. A "stairway" is the stairs INCLUDING any landings. You can have a couple of steps up to the main house from the garage without a landing, but the door has to swing INTO the main house. It can't swing over a "stair" which is defined by the Code as one or more risers. You should not be stepping through a door that swings away from you as you're also stepping down. This is incredibly dangerous.

A "stair" in the IRC is defined as one or more risers. Therefore, a door that swings over a dropped landing is still swinging over a stair. And frankly, anyone that designs a door that has a step behind it that drops as you're opening it (surprise!), probably deserves the subsequent lawsuit.

No, it does not matter whether the door is egress or not. R311 has a Chapter heading of Egress, but includes requirements for ALL stairs, too. "Exception: A floor or landing is not required at the top of an interior flight of stairs, including stairs in an enclosed garage, provided that a door does not swing over the stairs.

I think this should be around your R311.7.6 Landings for Stairways, in the Exceptions.

There is usually a step down into the garage. Swinging the door into the garage then would be a code violation in this instance.

The last time I looked at this fairly recently, the thermal envelope was being calculated based on the interior square footage and wall surface areas, not on the exterior surfaces as required for T24 in California, and even as required for REScheck. So, it was kind of useless. Too bad. With a little more attention, it could be something quite useful. I don't know if it's been fixed since I reported the issues.

No, I'm not okay with the unilateral suspension of license transfers, since the initial purchase of the license was predicated on possible future transfer, if needed.