Richard_Morrison

Wall niches are STILL affecting wall hatching, even after the last update today. ARRGGGHHH!!!

Tanya, You should be aware that unless the project is completely non-structural, you are almost certainly looking for a registered design professional for this occupancy group. http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/building_design_auth.pdf So, regardless of your comfort level in working remotely, an unlicensed designer won't be able to submit drawings for a permit. (And legally, should not even be designing it.) Even a licensed architecture firm not licensed in California would have a problem. (Again, unless your project is completely non-structural.) You are probably looking for a firm more like: http://architecture4e.com/ (Disclaimer: I know nothing about them. This was just a quick Google search.)

Voodoo seems like an unreliable solution, but if it works...

One advantage of Dropbox is that all files are stored (and accessed) locally, and only sync to the cloud and other computers when there is an internet connection active, and this is done automatically and transparently. If you don't have an internet connection, it works just the same, and catches up when you get a connection. Otherwise, it is just like working from your C: drive. I also have OneDrive, and it seems to work similarly, but not as fast as Dropbox. I've had a few glitches with OneDrive and Chief, but never an issue with Dropbox over a number of years. Somehow, the syncing algorithm seems much faster with Dropbox, and it will sync up even a multi-GB file within seconds.

1) Install Dropbox. 2) Put your files in Dropbox in a normal project folder. 3) Open and close your plan file normally. You don't have to think about download/uploading the file.

The CEC Residential Compliance Manual is huge, and not something you can master in a day. www.energycodeace.com is a helpful website. Anyway, I'll try to explain. If you are using the PRESCRIPTIVE approach, you can extend existing 2x4 walls with R-15. No problem. However, any OTHER new walls must meet U<=0.051. (except for climate zones 6 & 7) You cannot realistically achieve this with a 2x4 wall without R-8 additional, probably 2" thick, so why not just use a 2x6 wall with spray foam? See JA-4 table. You get more flexibility with the PERFORMANCE approach, but the energy budget is still based on a U<=0.051 exterior wall. If you are using 2x4 walls with R-15 insulation throughout, then you are taking a huge hit in the compliance and must compensate with higher insulation values for roofs/ceilings, higher efficiency mechanical units, HERS inspections, etc. One loophole for additions, if you want to call it that, is using an Existing + Addition compliance approach with HERS existing condition verifications. Unlike the last code cycle, this code cycle you don't get credit for existing conditions that are being upgraded, UNLESS you have obtained the HERS verification and certification before the energy calc's are submitted. I have a hard time believing that 2x4 walls with R-15 are going to comply on a computer based approach as a matter of course without either really massive energy upgrades elsewhere, or something else going on. This just sounds a little hinky to me. I have an architect friend who recently did a new house in the Bay Area and was told by the energy consultant that 2x4 exterior walls were going to be fine. I suggested he look at this more carefully, and somehow he found that all his exterior walls were now required to be 2x6's. I don't know what's going on with these consultants. One nice feature of the EnergyPro software is that you enter in your building and can choose either Prescriptive or Performance, and it will spit out the correct forms. Given the last minute adjustments and fine-tunings to the design that are sometimes required for compliance, it's hard for me to see farming this energy compliance out to someone else.

No, you can never get around the mandatory measures, even if the performance approach shows that you will still be under the energy budget. Think of these measures as the absolute minimum you must do, regardless. Even if you design a super-efficient box that is WAY under the energy budget, you can never use less than R-15 in a 2x4 framed wall, for example. (BTW, 2x4 framing in an exterior wall is now only allowed where an existing 2x4 wall is being extended. 2x6's must be used otherwise in an exterior wall.) If you use a performance approach, you can add other energy-saving measures to maybe allow you to use just a regular ol' 2x4 wall with R-15. If you use the prescriptive approach, unless you are doing an addition where the code cuts you some slack, you are looking at a U<= 0.051 factor for exterior walls, which almost certainly will be batts plus continuous insulation, or sprayed-on foam. In the prescriptive approach, you also need to be very careful about which windows are spec'd, too. Only a small percentage of windows meets the prescriptive requirements.

No real problems (except maybe with troglodyte contractors) and a lot of benefits. As Zero Net Energy approaches in 2020, I think we'll be seeing a lot more of it.

Personally, I think if you can show that you used a CEC-approved program to get to the U<=.051, then why not? (Although this does seem to be in conflict with the J4 table, so you might get some pushback from the building department.) Regarding the structural panels over the top of the insulation, this does create some detailing issues, but apparently not a big deal structurally, and may actually be an advantage. https://neea.org/docs/default-source/reports/thermal-break-shear-wall-a-case-study-of-rigid-foam-insulation-between-frame-and-sheating.pdf?sfvrsn=4 However, I don't know if the nailing patterns would need to be adjusted, and what other code issues you may need to deal with. Personally, I'm using a lot more sprayed-on foam these days.

Gene- I certainly don't have a problem calling an exterior door left hand outswing vs. left hand reverse. Who cares? Also, in a world of prehung doors and reversible hardware, it doesn't really matter getting the edge bevel correct since the installation won't be messed up in the field. However, I also come from a commercial/institutional background where there are often KD or welded metal frames, and doors are hung later. Hardware handing is critical and beveled edges need to be angled in the right direction, especially since doors sometimes come with split face veneers. Calling a LHR door a RH door can have very expensive consequences. For those that don't understand why beveled edges are important to a quality job, this discussion may be interesting: http://idighardware.com/2011/03/square-edge-vs-beveled-edge/ If people are just doing mainstream residential, then they probably don't care. However, I keep hearing that people want Chief to be able to do commercial work, too, and I personally am uncomfortable with the possibility for errors in the swing labeling.

Such complicated schemes for determining handing. Here's an easier one, with you standing on the "outside" of the door (See JJohnson's definitions above): 1) Open the door so that you can keep you hand on the knob as you walk through the door. Which hand is on the knob? If it's your right hand, it's a right-handed door, and if the left, it's a left-handed door. 2) If you've pulled the knob towards you, it's a "reverse."

Apparently, someone didn't like my answer to this question. So, let me expound a bit. Take a look at the attached diagram, and the confusing schedule that Chief generates. Chief says the hinges are on the right side of the exterior door. THIS IS WRONG. THEY ARE NOT. This is a left-hand reverse door, not a right-hand door. If you add information that you think is going to be helpful to a door supplier, there a good chance that Chief will get it wrong. In this particular case, you risk getting hinges getting mortised backwards or on the wrong side, and the mortised front door hardware being ordered incorrectly and installed reversed. At worst, you are going to be paying $$ for the purported "benefit" of having added this information. At best, you get to merely argue with the confused supplier who was going by your schedule.

Yes, the high 3D face count is what I mean. You could try David's suggestion of 3D objects only on the roof edges, but Chief does not have symbols for this. (Joe's symbols on a polyline distribution path looks pretty good.) I am a believer in using the right tool for the job, and I'm not sure that Chief is the right tool at the moment for tile roofs. I am using a different BIM program when faced with this situation.

While I think it is admirable to try to make things as clear as possible to a door supplier, it is also possible to take on unwarranted liability in doing so. If you give them a door schedule with simple door types, sizes, and hardware groups, PLUS the floor plan, then they are responsible for determining the correct handing of the door, etc. This is what they do for a living. There will still be screw-ups, of course, but at least they won't be yours or Chief's.

Be aware that although you can get the model to look great with 3D roof tiles, it probably will slow down the display of the model dramatically.

You can always check the Building Code for prescriptive dimensions with conventional construction. Of course, that means that you would have to actually read it.

California Codes are all available online. Just Google it.

If you right-click on the anchor bolt when it appears, does "Show in Browser" pop up? If so, that will show you where it came from. Generally, connectors are in the Simpson StrongTie library.

Mixing a bunch of hipped roofs with gables seldom looks good. While it's possible, probably not when designed by Chief Architect alone. (One exception might be a "Dutch Gable," which is sort of a hybrid, shown in your example.) I would pick one style of roof and go with it. Also important is the relative size of subsidiary roofs. Tiny gables or hips can look like "warts" on a larger roof if not appropriately sized.

Of course.

Wall hatching has been problematic for a long time, and since I've been complaining about it, not much has been done. (Well it did improve a bit for X9.) For some real fun, try putting a wall niche into a hatched wall in X10.

It's still the code for bearing partitions. See R502.4 in California. Personally, I appreciate the double joists appearing as a reminder, and usually would want them anyway.

We're talking vector views of a wall elevation. I guess part of my frustration occurs because in ArchiCAD, you can just drag the fill origin to where you want the pattern to start. (Also, you can just drag the fill "handle" to rotate the pattern.) Maybe I'm making a bigger deal out of this than necessary, but having to create a tile material for each critical wall elevation and floor seems overly complicated, so sometimes I just show a "vignette" of the tile pattern without trying to show the whole thing. Patterns like 12x24 tile where you want the joint intersection exactly on the center of the shower valve handle, plus a 3x12 bullnose at the shower stall edge, feels like my life is being sucked out of me for what should be a very trivial task.

About my only big frustration with Chief right now (aside from tile roofs) is the inability to set the origin of a fill pattern, especially on a wall elevations. For mosaics and smallish tiles, it's not a problem, but showing large format tiles where the grout joint location is critical is a maddening process since the joints are not easily adjustable. Anyone feel like they've got this nailed with a creative solution?

You seem to be unaware that we can just move or copy a line or polyline and hit the TAB key while moving to input the distance we wish. Or use concentric copying for multiple copies. This is actually as fast, or faster, than AutoCAD, and with fewer steps.