SNestor

1 hour ago, rgardner said:

Interesting.  Didn't open your test plan but just helped someone else with an elevation issue for a polyline solid he put in the plan.  He hadn't specified the different rooms and even though each room had the ceiling and floor heights set properly it automatically went with the lowest possible setting to figure the floor height (in this case his specified garage floor which is set in his preferences to be 18" below the other floor.  So it put the polyline solid in the wrong spot when he tried to specify it from the floor height.

 

I am thinking that in your case what Robert is saying may have some validity, chief doesn't like the unknown and thus is playing wonky until it is set correct.  Hope you like my super technical terminology.  Anyways just a thought...

A garage room is unique...more things can be specified.  A deck, porch and balcony room type have some unique controls also.  
 

A general room type - like “Living Room” does not control floor or ceiling elevation. 

1 hour ago, robdyck said:

Of course. My thinking is that its just an indication or a 'cue' that the rooms and their properties have been addressed. 

It was just a quickie test plan...formality wasn’t a concern.  

Here's a video...might help clear up some questions...or, possibly generate even more questions.

  I have to say...split levels creates a lot of issues.  This doesn't seem to be an easy thing to accomplish in Chief...at least for me.  

@robdyck - a specific “room” type isn’t required.  The only thing a room spec would change is the flooring and molding.  The room type doesn’t specify the ceiling height...that’s a floor default.  And...since this is a split level...I have raised the floor 36” in the room...so the defaults are not relevant.  
 

Your post was helpful.  I think “balloon” through for some of the walls is an important step.  Thanks. 

20 minutes ago, robdyck said:

@SNestor

One of the issues with your test plan is that the rooms and the ceiling heights haven't been defined. Chief would like a proper ceiling height in order to decide where a wall should be built up to. These ceiling heights should match the top plate height of the exterior walls for the roof covering that room. Then, and only then will Chief's functions work correctly.

No offense intended but this test isn't ideal because Chief needs more info. It's a bit of a 'cart before the horse' type of test plan.

These screenshots are taken after the rooms were defined, and then I adjusted the walls properties. No polyline editing.

 

 

Room heights are certainly defined...I'm well aware of that requirement. 

Screen shot is directly from the test plan I attached...not sure what you are looking at.

1 hour ago, dshall said:

Steve,  I copied a wall from second floor and pasted in place in attic above and checked ROOF CUTS WALL AT BOTTOM.  No manual editing of wall.

 

I did not find a big issue with this method.  Let me know what you think.

 

Scott...thanks!  You nailed it...(I'm not really surprised )

Now...why do we have to intervene manually to get this to work...or do we?  Did I do something wrong creating this project?  

I guess I'm wondering why Chief doesn't create the required attic walls automatically. 

26 minutes ago, DavidJPotter said:

Nestor,

I unchecked the attic walls from pony walls to just exterior attic walls, and then edited the polylines to fit the space, inside and out. I believe it was the ponywall setting that made this overly hard.

 

DJP

 

Nestor.zip

Thanks David.  I never want to "shape" walls if possible...so, it never crossed my mind.  Is this really the only way?  Chief won't create these attic walls automatically?

Attached is a test plan for a split level home.  The left side of the floor plan...the floor elevation is "zero".  On the right side is the split.  The main room to the right is raised 36" and is to have a vaulted ceiling.  There is a garage below this room. 

Between the entry and the raised room there will be a half wall (I've used a railing wall...).  

I've tried a lot of things...but, as you will see in the attached screen clips...because I'm using a railing wall to divide the elevated floor from the "entry" floor 36" below...the attic wall is not generating correctly. 

Have I drawn this split level plan correctly...or, is there a better way?  I'm not expert on split levels (obviously).  Any help or ideas would be appreciated.  Thanks!

Test Plan attached: Split Level Plan Test.plan

Split Level Plan Test.plan

On 4/12/2020 at 10:22 AM, Greg_NY61 said:

The new Ultracraft Catalog the moldings don't work, you cannot apply them and they don't show up in the Molding specifications or in Select library object browser.

Yea...those moldings are not "moldings"...someone didn't do their job correctly.  You can't right click and get the option to "place molding profile".  I even copied to my user library to see if I'd get the option...nope.

I avoid the 3D molding polyline like a virus.  

As an alternative...I sometimes just use a molding polyline in plan view...adjusting as needed, then...turn it into a symbol where you can "stand it up" by rotating the molding on it's X-Axis.  

Yea...sometimes you have no choice but to use a 3D molding polyline...but this tool is a PIA. I wish Chief would improve it as there really are some places where it can be very useful.

10 minutes ago, Michael_Gia said:

I just wanted to reply to something you said in your video regarding why anyone would use centre dimensions on interior walls. 
Two big reasons why most plans show the centre is that the centre won’t change even if the wall thickness might suddenly change. Also for walls to line up with support beams and columns, that definitely can vary at any moment, again the Center measurements will not change. Things always line up properly. 

You should always use center measurements.  You’re playing with fire if you don’t. 

 

Your carpenter is well versed in splitting dimensions of 2x4’s, 2 x6’s etc. It should be second nature to them. 
 

45 years in wood frame construction...never saw a framer dimension to the center in my life.  Must be a regional thing...

3 hours ago, builtright3 said:

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the cameras and cross section view, layers and defaults.

 

I make a new layer called "cross sections" because I want to separate it from the elevation camera views and it works real nice. The problem is that I want to be able to save the settings but if I change them for the framing sections at 3/8 or 1/2" scale then It messes up the camera views.

 

Is there a way of saving and/or copying this call out so I don't have to set it up 2 or 3 times on every drawing I do?

I'm afraid that if I set it as the default than it will mess up the camera views I use for elevations. Just having a hard time understanding it.

 

Any help would be appreciated. I need to understand sections better because it seems like I spend a lot of time on them and they could be more be more automatic. 

If you are trying to add text to a section view...then, after creating the section elevation...choose one of your already created layersets where text is defined at a different scale, such as 1/2" or 3/8"...as Joey suggested above.  Or...maybe you just want to send to layout at a different scale? 

I've attached a quick layerset at 1/3" scale as an example...(you would switch to this layerset to add text to your section)

Just now, DzinEye said:

Looks to me like you laid that to rest

I was hoping so...a video is worth a 1,000 posts.

2 hours ago, builtright3 said:

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the cameras and cross section view, layers and defaults.

 

I make a new layer called "cross sections" because I want to separate it from the elevation camera views and it works real nice. The problem is that I want to be able to save the settings but if I change them for the framing sections at 3/8 or 1/2" scale then It messes up the camera views.

 

Is there a way of saving and/or copying this call out so I don't have to set it up 2 or 3 times on every drawing I do?

I'm afraid that if I set it as the default than it will mess up the camera views I use for elevations. Just having a hard time understanding it.

 

Any help would be appreciated. I need to understand sections better because it seems like I spend a lot of time on them and they could be more be more automatic. 

Mr. Cool...

Go to Defaults>Camera Tools>Cross Section/Elevation>Layer...specify the layer you want to use each time you use the cross section/elevation camera.

You can do this for each camera view.

I did a video...please someone tell me if I've missed something.  

1 minute ago, solver said:

 

Seems to be Yes.

 

 

You are so helpful...thanks!

3 minutes ago, solver said:

 

I believe your example shows exactly what I said above. You will only get a dimension to the centerline of an interior wall if the wall intersects with an exterior wall...as per your video example.  

Yes? No?

OK...I stand corrected.  You have to use the end-to-end dimension tool...and then it will dimension to the center of an interior wall.  But - if you use the interior dimension tool...it doesn't.  Weird...

1 minute ago, solver said:

I probably don't understand ...

 

Your post seems to suggest you do understand...how about enlightening us all?

1 hour ago, tommy1 said:

Yes it will.

Show us how...

Someone might know better...but, I don't believe manual dimensions will locate the center of an interior wall.  However, Auto Exterior Dimension will located the center of interior walls that intersect perpendicular to an exterior wall.  

See attached;

1 minute ago, Michael_Gia said:

It’s just plain lazy and a result of disorganization that general contractors get their carpenters to stick frame. 
 

It also means getting your clients to sign off on plans and tell them, “that’s it, no more changes”. Most guys don’t have the guts to tell their clients when enough is enough. 

Yes...and yes. 

I spent hours reviewing truss drawings for large multi-family projects. Hundreds of different trusses for a single building. I would always find errors...mostly because the architect we were using had made dimension errors...but, thats an entire new can of worms right there.  But...review/markup...new drawings sent...approved. This process could take weeks.  

So...yes, builders don't have the patience and customers don't want to sign off...especially when they are spending a million dollars (that's 2.5 million in California) to construct a home. These customers just feel they should have the "right" to change their mind. It's costly...but, home builders allow this practice so it has become a standard.  

Just to chime in on the trusses/stick built roof comments.  

Here in Indianapolis...just about every production built home uses trusses...and production built homes are probably 85% of all new homes built in my area.  However, I'd say 85% of custom designed/built homes are stick framed.  

I recently talked to a field project manager for Arthur Rutenberg Homes.  I asked him why they don't use trusses on their homes...which are huge and beautiful homes for the most part...he made a statement that made me stop in my tracks.  He said to me..."most of our clients think that homes constructed with trusses are cheap".  This statement just shows a perception that still exists...not only by the people in construction but also by customers who are purchasing large and expensive homes.  I have no doubt this gentleman believed what he said...because all production homes are constructed with trusses (in my area)...and Arthur Rutenberg does not want their customers to associate Rutenberg custom homes with lower priced production homes.  It's Marketing-101.  

As I walked through the Rutenberg home I took note of the roof construction and saw the typical issues that stick built framing can bring when it comes to big complex roof structures. Long rafters that were braced in some cases down to non-load bearing walls....sometimes supported by a doubled up 2x ceiling joist right in the middle of a span.  Obviously...this project manager allowed the framer they hired to become the engineer.  

The plans were in the home I was touring...so, I reviewed them. No details on roof bracing were included.  There were plenty of framing details...just none on how and where to brace the roof.  

Now...I'm sure the roof won't collapse or anything...but, in regards to the structural integrity of roof design, stick framed roof systems (typically...not all) are no comparison to an engineered truss roof system...especially if the framer is allowed to become the engineer on the project.  Truss roof systems have problems also...I'm not saying they are a panacea.  And I think for a large home with a complex roof system...roof trusses might be too expensive.  And...sometimes lot conditions just don't allow room for a crane to help lift the trusses up to the roof.  

One other thing that has led some builders to stick framing is the availability of getting trusses versus picking up the phone and getting lumber dropped onto the site in a few days. After the 2008 housing crash a large number of Indianapolis lumber yards disappeared and so did a lot of truss manufacturing companies.  This I believe has made obtaining trusses for large custom homes more of a challenge.  

13 minutes ago, Dermot said:

Currently, as far as camera views are concerned, stairs are all or nothing.  Basically, the stringers are treated as part of the stair and not as framing.  

 

If you would like this to work differently, then you need to submit a feature request.  In your feature request, you need to be very clear about which components of the stairs, ramps, and landings you want to be handled separately, what new system layers you would like added, how you would like these layers to be treated in plan view, etc.

Why would we ever have to request specific layers for any component...I would think the software engineers at Chief would know by now that this is something we would always desire if it is possible. 

I 

21 minutes ago, robdyck said:

As have so many things. It'd be great if Chief had a method or procedure to let users know which parts of the program were up for a review, and could put together a panel or committee to hash out some of the details that would actually be implemented. I feel like its quite ineffective and maybe even pointless to repeat the same requests in the suggestions part of this forum or to submit feature requests in the beta testing with absolutely no idea if or when they might be implemented...in whole or in part.

Even if a feature is going to be implemented or tweaked, it seems like it could be helpful to know what, and when, and then have a formal process for input.

 

Lets take the preview pane of the roof dbx for example:  Its probably not all that helpful for me to spitball an idea for improvements and post it here or in suggestions when other users like yourself, or Eric or Michael or Joe (just to name a few) haven't also had a chance to pick apart or add their ideas and thoughts. Certainly, with a combined effort we could provide valuable enhancements. By contrast, weeding through a suggestion topic for the gold nuggets amidst a dog's breakfast isn't practical  or reasonable.

I recently was viewing a webinar being hosted by a software company that is probably slightly larger than CA...but a much younger company, probably not more than 6-8 years old.  During their presentation - the webinar host displayed a page that they host that is open to all subscribers/users of their software.  This page showed a long list of feature improvements that were in some stage of development...and where the feature was in the queue. Along the right side of the list was the "status" of each improvement.  Some features were listed as "coming soon"...others were listed as "in development" and others were listed as "proposed".  

I think if Chief gave us something like this at least we would know what they think we want or need in the software.  Maybe we could "vote" on things listed as "proposed".  Not sure how to implement this idea...but, something would be better than nothing...which is what we have now. 

Also...Chief should just scrap the stair tool and start over.  Just sayin'....

OK...so, I guess I didn't understand the new "stair stringer" feature Chief added to the stair tool in X12.  

It seems you cannot display the "stringers" only in the "3D framing" cameral layerset?  If you turn the "stairs and landings" layer off...the stringers disappear.  Also...if you don't use "open risers"...you don't see the stringers in the framing overview.   

Am I wrong about this?  Am I missing something?