Richard_Morrison

Well, that's pretty embarrassing! It's amazing all the stuff you can forget when you don't use a complex and ever-changing program on a daily basis. And that was back in the "olden days" when we didn't even have the direct Edit CAD Block command, which is the story I'm sticking to.

I think the custom countertop approach works pretty well. Thank you! I've tried editing the CAD block (select cabinet with sink, edit CAD block, change CAD to dashed lines), but for some reason, even though the edit looks good, when I save "only this instance", I don't see the 2D block change to the new version. This will take a little more troubleshooting.

Just to make sure I am not missing something obvious, is there any way to set a cabinet countertop line style for individual cabinets? I can come up with a bunch of workarounds, but would love to be able to easily set just a few countertops to a dashed line style for demolition without changing EVERY cabinet. Turning off a countertop and drawing a dashed line manually is always an option, of course. Similar situation with sinks in cabinets. (No way to set a fixture layer individually for a sink that I can find. I can delete the sink and add a 2D block, of course.)

My point exactly. I hope that Chief's programmers look at your suggestions, or come up with another alternative. I will say that the situation has gotten somewhat better over the years. It used to be that an entire last paragraph could get clipped off in a long text box, whereas now the effect seems to be limited to a single character. I had one instance a number of years ago where a paragraph got truncated without me catching it, and it easily could have cost me a lot more than just the embarrassment it caused.

I have plenty of Windows programs that use text -- including other CAD programs -- that have NEVER exhibited this behavior with multiple resolutions. So, obviously it's a programming issue. I'm not sure why you are so quick to absolve Chief of any responsibility for addressing this issue.

I have been reporting this issue since at least 2006 (http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread.php?20199-Weird-text-problem), and the problem was happening with room labels before that. Since nothing has happened in at least 15 years of many multiple bug reports, I wouldn't hold your breath. I've certainly given up. Doug Park completely redid the text generation in 2001 (http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread.php?2325-Text-size-difference-between-CA6-amp-CA7), when he found multiple legacy problems with text, so it's possible that text has NEVER worked properly.

For the grown-ups here, let's try to put this to bed. Assume a non-structural ridge board, which now requires resistance to the lateral forces being created. A 12/12 roof that is, say, 28' wide (thus 14' high) with a heavy roof covering and rafters 24" o.c. So, with a 30 lb. (snow) live load and 15 psf roofing and 10 psf framing/sheathing, we get (30+15+10 psf) x 2 ft. x 14 ft. = 1540 lbs. vert. reaction at top plate for each rafter. An equal force is required to counteract the outward thrust at 12/12. (The lateral loads increase as the slope is reduced.) This is regardless of any collar ties since there is no vertical support provided by them. This connection is essentially 16 - 16d nails, or the equivalent in bolts, at every connection. It is highly unlikely that you are going to get an adequate connection so close to the end of a framing member that won't split the wood. This is why you have to provide either a structural ridge (to eliminate lateral forces) or a knee wall (or purlin) mid-span. (Which helps, but you still will have to connect some chord in tension where the forces are greatly reduced from the above.) If you want to use a non-structural ridge, you probably should also use a structural engineer because detailing for the tension forces is critical.

Here's another article by yet another structural engineer: https://www.jlconline.com/how-to/framing/q-a-when-are-collar-ties-needed_o It addresses some of Doug's point in that when a collar tie is added to a steep roof, it CAN reduce the deflection of the rafters. In this case, the collar ties are in COMPRESSION as spreaders, must be at each rafter (along with a strongback after a certain width) and are thus not acting to keep the rafters from separating at the ridge. The typical collar tie you normally see is at 4' o.c. and IS there to keep the rafters from separating at the ridge and thus is in TENSION. However, as this engineer points out, they don't do a great job, and steel straps work better. In a private conversation, Doug suggested to me that the collar ties on a steep roof can help reduce framing material. However, seems to me the savings would be minimal over just adding a little more depth to the rafter and reducing the labor costs by eliminating the collar ties. (In addition to having more clearance in the attic.)

With a high dead load, you most specifically are going to be using a ridge BEAM (as opposed to a ridge board). A rafter tie, especially as you get to lower slopes, is not going to work because the tension forces will require far more nailing/bolting than a rafter or ceiling joist can handle. Generally, rafters are designed as beams to handle the full live and dead loads of the roofing material, and do not need any additional reinforcement. The collar ties are not needed. Straps across the ridge are only needed for wind uplift forces that tend to pull the rafters away from the ridges. Here is a sample structural calculation by a structural engineer that shows what even a lightly loaded tension forces are for a ridge BOARD arrangement: https://www.jlconline.com/how-to/framing/rafter-ties-and-shallow-pitch-roofs_o At the ceiling in the above example, you would be looking at at least 14-16d nails at each rafter/ceiling joist connection. Unlikely you could do this in a way that would not split the wood. Increase the loads with a tile roof, and you are looking at FAR more nailing required. This is why you will always have a ridge BEAM with heavy roofs. Since a roof beam does not generate any lateral forces (like a ridge board does), there is no reason for a collar tie. Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about, and spreading this structural nonsense is not helpful. Here's a non-technical article that may be helpful: https://www.nachi.org/collar-rafter-ties.htm

Installing through-bolts during a full moon is equally effective as those plate washers.

The card being used needs to be set in the NVidia Control Panel or maybe the GE Force Experience. You can set it to use the dedicated (or integrated) on a per-program basis or a global basis. (oops. Just saw Rene had already posted this.)

Thanks, @Chopsaw! That gets me much closer. I've looked at the "Wall ID", too, and have no idea where that number comes from.

I am being required by a plan checker to tabulate wall lengths for a whole house remodeling: Existing, Demo, and New. This is supposed to demonstrate that the new + demo'd walls are less than 50% of the length of the existing house walls. I am trying to do this in Chief; the Wall Schedule is somewhat close, but not close enough to be useful. I am supposed to provide a diagram for the plan checker. I thought that a plan like the attached would work. Wall labels show up fine, but the labels do not show up in the wall schedule. I have no idea why not. Bug? It looks like wall hatching (which I use to show new walls) is capable of having its own label and being scheduled, but I can't figure out a way to get the hatching lengths to appear in any schedule. Any suggestions?

Not only does the fire protection need to work from both top and bottom sides of the floor assembly, when you create a 2nd dwelling unit below, you will need to meet upgraded acoustical separation requirements per the building code. Also, the new unit will need its own mechanical system. You should pay attention to the details of any penetrations of the fire-rated assembly. Recessed lights will need their own fire protection, for example. Also, the current stairs between the units will have to be detailed correctly, and in some cities, removed. Check with your planning department.

I'd like to think of it more as "semi-retired" just to leave the door open. But it's true I'm not taking on any more work. However, I do know other architects in the immediate area, if Chief does not have to be a criterion. If you haven't done a second-story project in Menlo Park before, well, you are in for one of Dante's circles of hell. If you think you can just design and draw a second-story addition --- mwahahaha. There will be months of a design review process before you can even submit for a permit, and the CD's will be brutal. I just finished a kitchen remodel in Menlo Park as one of my last projects. I moved the door (2'-8" wide) from the garage to the kitchen 3' over on the same wall and had to do a structural calc for the new header. Not a single square foot added, but had to do a full-house lateral calc to justify the remaining walls at a new french door to the exterior in the same location as a window. (The new door was 1' wider than the window.) Sorry, but my body is starting to involuntarily twitch thinking about it.

What is it that you want to do that Default Sets are not doing for you?

I fell asleep to many of his videos. I always thought that he would have had a great career as a professional hypnotist.

An oldie but goodie: http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread.php?26332-Foundations-below-grade

Did you know that you can press F1, type "waterfall", and get an answer immediately? Amazing!

I went through this awhile ago. I found that a backsplash works better, although I don't recall exactly why. In elevation, just draw a single tall batten and convert to a backsplash. Then, you can multiple-copy across the wall. Doors and windows will be cut out automatically, but you can adjust height individually, group select and center on a window, etc.

I'm curious as to what you see as a significant benefit in this feature. We could use an attached text arrow macro with more flexibility in formatting to get essentially the same result for quite awhile now. Now, if we could schedule these polylines, we'd have something. But I haven't been able to figure out how to do this easily.

I think Joe was alluding to this, but it hasn't been made very clear. My experience (and understanding) is the main issue appears when you are printing PDFs of layouts where there are many PDFs that have been placed. PDFs of PDFs is the killer. If you can place PNGs on the layouts, rather than PDFs, it all goes much better. Another possible solution is to print the pages in smaller batches and then reassemble them into a single larger document later. But I agree that PDF printing in Chief is seriously bad.

I just went back to X12 to try this out. Polyline solids are not editable by Boolean operations in a 3D view. Try creating a couple of polyline solids in X12, then go to 3D view and select both of them. I don't get any Boolean operations available at all in 3D, and in X12, if you Union a couple of polyline solids, they don't retain their individual heights.

Yes, compared to X12, X13 is like modeling clay. I admit that fill origin offsets were improved somewhere along the way. It used to be that fill origin offsets acted globally, I believe, somewhere in the distant past, and I just never noticed when they became individually controllable.

Another feature that I think is incredible (but seems to be getting a "meh" reaction) is the ability to do Boolean operations on polyline solids, and then edit the created object (or the original object) in any view, including 3D views. This is getting pretty darn close to Sketchup.