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.

It's more like subscribing to Netflix and then finding out you can't sell your subscription.

True, but you can always sell the boat.

Chief annual subscription: $1995 Archicad (full) annual subscription: $2545 Softplan (12 mos.): $1140 I suspect that people will be exploring their options more carefully.

You might look for "onlays".

One product I've used for years is this: https://www.amazon.com/Freehand-Designer-Straight-Templates-Drawings/dp/B01EX94YH8 Takes a little practice, but helps you draw much faster. I'd recommend the clip board with clips on three sides, too.

For that amount, send him a thank-you note for highlighting that your business and billing practices need to be improved. That's probably $500 worth of useful information right there. You've probably already collectively wasted $500 in time dealing with this issue.

This is not exactly correct. If you don't initiate foreclosure proceedings within the statutory time period, then the lien becomes an unenforceable cloud on the title, which the holder statutorily can sue you to remove. If you want to be paid when/if the house is sold, then you need to file an abstract of judgment, after you get a judgment, of course.

I have a side business in collecting civil judgments on a contingency basis. You have some good advice already: 1) Unless you know the lien laws for the state you're filing in, you may not be able to enforce it ultimately, and then you will be on the hook financially for removing the unenforceable "cloud" on the title. It could end up costing YOU. It will also be very expensive to enforce, assuming that a foreclosure is even possible in your client's state. 2) Small claims court is likely the best bet, assuming that the claim limitations are acceptable. Depending on how your agreement is written, you MIGHT be able to file the suit in your OWN jurisdiction. (I'd check with an attorney.) Then, you can "domesticate" the judgment to your client's state and do the garnishment there. A judgment is very powerful. You might be able to just levy a bank account, file a wage garnishment, have the sheriff levy property for an auction, and other fun stuff. A collection agency probably will just make annoying phone calls or write letters. This is something you can do yourself. 3) Change your business practices so you don't find yourself in this position again.

Since the recent advent of multiple reference files in Chief, I don't think the difference (or benefit of AC) in this area is as great as it used to be. I would also consider that Chief has had essentially the same functionality as AC's Graphic Overrides for quite a bit longer than AC. Further, the wood framing features in CA far surpass anything that AC has or probably will ever have. Once X14 gets some of its beta issues ironed out, unless you are firm with multiple employees who need to work on the same project at the same time, I don't think the choice is so obvious anymore, at least if you are primarily residentially-based.

When the public beta was released, it included a note about adjusting vertical text spacing in schedules. There has been a longtime problem where a number of common fonts would sit directly on the grid lines with no space, and these fonts now look perfect in schedules. So it seems they added some padding below the text to adjust how text sits in schedule cells, but maybe the fix has flowed over to other areas?