SNestor

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.

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 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?

I think this has been requested many times...

To raise roofs...I just group select and use Transform/Replicate. To know exactly how much to raise or lower I wii take a cross section. That said - it would be great if we could group select roof planes and make changes. I wish we could save roof assemblies in our user Library.

I'm with Michael on this one...the SAM (Save As Method) might save you a few clicks...or, it could cost you a lot of time trying to chase down some elusive item causing your plan to be all screwed up. @dshall Scott Hall swears by the SAM and has been using it for years. But...Scott is most likely the creator of this method and he really understands Chief Architect Software - inside and out. I'm sure he developed his layer sets to work with his SAM over the years and knows just about everything that is going on in his plans. But, for me...I prefer to use a template plan to start with...something I am familiar with and know it works...consistently from plan to plan. When I create a new plan with a template...I know there are no stray walls on weird layers, no stray framing members, no stray foundation or attic walls. Just...a blank template ready for me to put it to work.

Take a "cad detail from view" of the plan. Copy (or add) cad lines back into your floor plan and dimension to those lines. You may want to put them on some unique layer so you can turn these temp cad lines off...not sure it'll be necessary...just an option. Standard dimension lines will snap to any cad lines you drop into the floor plan...so, if you grab the cad lines (in the cad detail from view) that make up the handrail...then, copy what you want, go back to the plan view and use "paste and hold position" these cad lines will be placed exactly where you need them. Then...add dimensions.

Yea...this is what you do when you are quarantined by some invisible virus.

Rene is correct... I had tried to recreate in a plan I was working on and for some reason (maybe I have a template issue?) it didn't work. Copied to the "residential template"...worked perfectly.

I created my own file...and the walls did not generate...so, maybe it's "finicky"?

Larry...I think Chief does these things to make sure we stay "crazy". I think Mark is correct...it's due to the fact that the two roof planes are so close together. I usually just drag the one attic wall...or, create my own attic wall. I think everyone just automatically does this to keep moving...but, it'd be nice if it just worked. Yea...after 20+ years of development you'd think Chief would have fixed this. But - maybe they have a good reason it works the way it does.

Bob... I believe the problem has been created by the way you set the building ceiling elevation. I didn't check every room...but it appears you have the ceiling height set to 180" everywhere. This is the problem. What I think you should have done is set the ceiling height to 109.125 (or whatever the base ceiling height should be). Then, uncheck "flat ceiling" on the room structure tab...put the roof on the building and let the software create "attic walls" to fill the void. I also used a "doorway" to create the opening that leads to the restrooms in place of using an invisible wall...just seems to be easier and works more consistently. Here is my sketch...maybe it'll help you understand what I did: Bob - Plan with Shed Roof 01.plan As you can see from the pics I've attached...this is how my attached plan was created and these "quirky" PIA problems do not exist.

You need a sledgehammer to get it all to work...because Chief just won't work on fixing the stair tool. However....the plan attached looks good to me. The bounding box of the newel isn't the problem...it's the width of the railing wall...and to some degree you have to adjust the doorway that the stairs create. Yea...total PIA. I used a "countertop" to create the porch overhang with a custom molding edge...and adjusted the display order of each object. I also changed the way you used the room divider wall...no need to make it as complex as you did. My room divider walls are on the invisible layer...so, you will have to turn the layer on to see them. deckrailing1 - Steve Nestor FIX 02.plan Newel Post for Rob Dyck -02.calibz Don't blame me if it isn't "perfect"...

I was referring to where the stair handrail was not connecting to the horizontal patio railing. The reason that the top/bottom rail is cut off is due to the bounding box of the post....and maybe the width of the wall. You have checked the box to "use wall width" in the newels/balusters tab of the railing DBX. My first thought was the wall was cutting off the handrail...but, I believe it's the post you created. The bounding box of the post is the width of the base plate...and that seems to be the line where the stair railing is cut off. If you replace the post I created with the one in your plan you will see that these rails will join together. I also unchecked the "use wall width" box.

@robdyck You might try changing the size of the bounding box of your custom newel. Right now Chief is using the base plate as the newel width. You have the newel set to be the width of the wall...so, the handrail is trimming off right at the wall surface. If you uncheck the box to make the newel the width of the wall...and, on the general tab, make the wall width 5"...or experiment...maybe make it 6". This will place the newel and the base inside your porch. It's the size of the bounding box that is the problem...on the newel I created I set the bounding box to be 3"x3"...which is the size of the newel I created. I also moved the "Y" axis in toward the newel 3/4". I've attached a fix plan...and the newel I created. Plan: deckrailing1 - Steve Nestor FIX 01.plan Newel: Newel for Rob Dyck.calibz

This is all I meant by my previous post. I probably would never do this...but, if one wanted to set up a saved plan view that had the default sets he wanted to start with each time he wanted to create a new "plan view"...he could create a plan view and name it "DEFAULT PLAN VIEW"....then, as needed, right click this view and "DUPLICATE". You would still have to edit the new plan view...I don't see this being a big time saver.

Create a Plan View and edit it...name it Default and just copy it to create new plan views. You should do this in your template so the “default” plan view appears in each new plan.

Scott - I believe the door opening lines are hard coded into Chief. You don’t have control of the dashed line size. You should send a ticket into Chief Support and ask for clarification. I think Chief stuck this feature in to satisfy some request they got and has now completely forgotten about this...thus no added features or controls. They do this too often IMO.

Now that is a creative solution...excellent. With Chief's stair tool...you gotta think outside the box...way outside.

Thanks Scott for hosting a wonderful webinar...always fun times. Attached is a small Kitchen sample style pallet you can mess with and see what happens. Some of the pallets are meant to be used by "object"...others by "room". I'm sure you will figure out which is which... Kitchen Style Pallet Example 01.calibz

"It would be a lot easier of people would just post plans. " Yes it would.

Not all walls...you can define a pony wall as a "railing"...and set it to "follow stairs". see attached... But, for the OP's question Michael is correct...but, I can't seem to get it to work. Chief...please start from scratch and make the stair tool so superior that we don't ever need to post another "issue with stairs"...

You should always post the plan...it saves us from guessing. That said...dimensions are controlled by the annotation/default set you are using. Double click the "ruler" icon and view the settings.