JiAngelo

Check out section 604.

We import/export Autocad files. Tell chief which layers are elevation data and it creates the contours in perspective view.

Instead of "office" what about a car salesman's or banker style cubicles? Uline has many desk ideas. Build the desk space w/ either a sliding glass door or maybe a pocket door for more privacy? Below is the ADA bath, which also garners more room in the kitchen area. Just enough privacy to make some calls and hide a messy desk

Well, your new bathroom design doesn't meet ADA. (The first design needed the door reversed and enlarged to 32" clear space when opened. 42" clearance from centerline of toilet to edge of sink.) The 30x48 clear floor space allows door to swing in that otherwise impinges required clearances of toilet & sink. And your new kitchen hallway is too narrow. Note, your original kitchen size was actually too small to maneuver around all the items you listed in #5 above. (a refrigerator is 29" deep min. and base cabinets 26" with C-tops. So 18" between sink and refrigerator is all you have shown - this won't work.) Lastly, most businesses consider a clean bathroom to be a critical part of their brand and customer trust. I would think your kitchen would be maintained equally clean. And if so, your client would return to the conference table doubly impressed. Ultimately its simply your call. You could leave the shop door where it was and let that office be semi-private. Not sure how much shop traffic you have there.

9x8, 10x7, and 12x6 are about the smallest office with a door in/out that one can design. Less than that you are better off with two cubicles in a larger room but lose privacy. Your main problem is hallways eating up space to get to kitchen/bath from doors. The least intrusive option I'd choose would be to move the door to the shop. Relocate the kitchen area to be a passthrough to the bathroom. Should be easy to extend the sink plumbing. Hope this helps.

https://www.owenscorning.com/en-us/roofing/components/vent-calculator

Thanks Shayne, and my apologies Rob. Took me a minute to figure it out but that's pretty slick. Learn something new every day

Stretching on the Z-axis to thicken the roof joists also stretches the supports, their connections, the counterflashing depth & standing seam heights. Here, a 2'2" z-axis increase would put those supports into the roof overhang.

Open DBX for each foundation room and separately tell CA what you want in each foundation room. You may need to select the common wall between between house and post-frame and turn off its footings to get it to look like the pole barn and not the crawl walls. View it in 3d and raise this wall bottom to match monolithic wall bottom. I have to ask if the post-frame floor is flush with grade? Because the crawlspace joists & sill plate must be 6" above grade, so a 2x10 joist floor is actually 17.5" above grade, minimum. -i.e. not level with post-frame floor.

There are a couple of boxed awnings in the Bonus Catalog: Exterior Commercial Awnings. Here's one we used in the past. You can rotate it 180 degrees and inset it into the wall 4" to get a similar look. I've also used corbels upside down to achieve the same look. In the library there is one with supports that look like yours. If you copy and paste in place a second one, then offset it you get this. To increase the flat roof framing thickness create a solid or slab and color it to match. This avoids trying to create those decorative supports.

Additionally, ForteWeb shows a single 32' TJI 560 11-7/8" @ 12"oc should work as well. Another option would be (2) 32' TJI 560's 9-1/2" at either 12" or 16"oc. Costs more, but is 2" thinner in roof height. For the 8' beams supporting ~12' tributary span one side and ~16' tributary span other side, requires (2) 11 7/8" 2.0E ML's using top hangers. Using your framing image, here's your iso tapered ridges if you want to maintain the thinnest perimeter profile everywhere. And here's an alternate iso tapered ridge layout that requires building up the inset area noted. Chief should readily show you the first if you set your roof to 1/4" /12 slope. The second requires a bit more work I also think you could 14" I-joists on the interior 32'x23' room and save some tapered iso. (those would be flush with the bottom of the 11-7/8" and rise above 2-1/8") ForteWeb actually says (1) 14" TJI 560's @ 19.2"oc can span 32', which would then have all your rafters running left/right and make it easier to run MEPs. Hope this helps.

Take a look at these P3 I-joist span charts. On page 30 the PJI 90 series 11-7/8" spans 32' @ 12"oc. You could run the rafters left to right on the porch only and eliminate the steel beam. Your (2) columns would be supporting heavier 8' beams back to the house with rafters hangered on each side. Lesser series will work elsewhere. On a side note, minimum flat roof slope is 1/4" per foot, so your 2" tapered iso is only good for about 6' (min. 1/2" req.) Your going to need ~4-3/4" to ridge front to back, then hip the sides. 02-P3-Joist-User-Guide-US.pdf

The 32' span is your biggest hurdle. Deflection will likely require steel to be greater than 12" tall. I know glulams would be greater than 16" based on another job we just sized. ForteWeb.com will allow you to run some calculations yourself. Maybe (4) columns spaced 6'-24'-6' would work. That would keep the posts out of the triple door openings line of sight. Headers in the ceiling over patio doors negates cantilevering (which would lessen the load actually on the steel beam.) Uplift would still be concern. Give it to an engineer and see what they have to say. Why be embarrassed? You're at the point where you need his input to refine your plan.

FWIW - I've never been able to slide windows or doors closer than 2" to one another. I can paste one beside another and the distance is then 0 between them.

Joe, when you say "all floors are at relative elevations to sea level." Don't you mean all floors are relative to the terrain and you've given your terrain a relative sea level value? I ask this because Chief maintains level 1 floor relative to the terrain. We built a 3 story house 10 years back with a 2 level basement. 2x10 joists. Our desired CA levels were as follows; 0 = Cellar = ‐22' 11.5" below 1st Floor 1 = Basement = ‐10' 11.5" below 1st Floor 2 = 1st Floor = 0 3 = 2nd Floor = 10' 11-1/8" above 1st Floor 4 = 3rd Floor = 20' 10-1/4" above 1st Floor. Level 2, 1st Floor, was 2' 11.5 above Terrain. So we had to tell chief Level 1 was -8' from the Terrain. This placed Level 2 exactly where we wanted it in relation to the terrain being 814.33 above sea level. It also set our cellar floor to 794.67 and cellar walkout patio at 794.00 (top of footers being 794.33 everywhere else.) Back then I created an excel sheet to track the elevations and overwrote our story pole values because it measures everything relative to CA level 1. I'm fairly certain you'd create a macro variable that would handle this discrepancy automatically. Long story short, if you insert a level between your plan's 0 and 1, making your first Floor now on.level 2, then tell chief your terrains relationship to new level 1 so that it is the proper height below.level 2, then all of your sea level measurements as they relate to the terrain should then be correct. Anything referencing level 1 would be off the distance terrain is above this level. I hope this helps.

Follow Robert's instructions. I used "Input Line" versus "Input Point" and you need to ignore Chief's rounding errors that it creates when drawing something so far away from the origin. To lessen the errors, open a new plan. Copy the above polygon and pasted it near the origin in the new plan. then import your pdf and change the CAD layer to RED. Now resize the PDF 10x and point-to-point moved it to match up the property borders with the red cad box. Note I changed the cad layer line weight to 1000 and also locked the PDF layer. Now you can create a terrain and place elevation points and splines that match up with those your plot plan. Note, the house isn't parallel to any of the lot lines. It is parallel to the front fence line. And here is your local government's GIS site map https://maps.rockhamptonregion.qld.gov.au/HTML5Viewer/?layerTheme=Contours You can turn off the PDF and paste that image instead. Resize it to match the red cad box and now you can figure out approximately where all the trees are in relation to the house. . I hope this helps. Again if your surveyor could send you a dxf/dwg file then you could import that and everything will show up in its exact location. I've added the X15 files for you to play around with. RealWorldPlotPlan.plan OriginPlotPlan-PDFGISimages.plan

What is the problem? Those 5 points create a polygon that is over -23m, -179m from the origin (0,0) If you have the surveyors dxf/dwg file you can import this into chief and all the points in the file will populate in that -23m, -179m location. Alternately you can import the survey pdf, move it to -23m, -179m and resize it to the reverse of scale and then move it to match up with 5 points. (I usually change the polygon color to red temporarily and insure the pdf is on the last layer behind everything and.lock that pdf layer.) Now you can manually add all the other elevation points. (Make them another color and it's easier to monitor your progress.) This isn't as precise but works internally for most uses. If your problem is the house is drawn near 0,0 (far from the polygon coordinates) There are several courses of action here. Let us know what you are trying to achieve.

In X15 you.can export your user library as a calibz file. Close X15, Open X16 and double click on the calibz file and it will import your user library into X16. I mucked up my X16 installation and discovered this. I've now deleted all extraneous user items that I rarely use and occasionally revisit X15 to copy/paste/add to library any I suddenly need.

ACADuser gave you the correct advice for manipulating a polyline to give you the area as you wish it to be calculated. Chief calculates standard living area (LA) to the outer edge of exterior walls (exteriors are LA excluded) and the middle of all interior walls. Name a room a LA excluded type (garage; porch, or open below for example) the adjoining LA included rooms then measure the entirety of the shared wall within its living area. The walls where LA excluded rooms touch each other will never be counted automatically by Chief. No different than walls separating a garage from a porch would ever be counted automatically. Your temporary solution was brilliant. Replace the wall adjoining 2 LA excluded rooms with 2 room dividers spaced the original wall's thickness apart. Then give the space between an LA included name. Then recreate the LA polyline and it should show you standard area calcs now automatically include what I think you wanted. Just add a filled polyline between the room dividers to mimic the wall.color you are using. An alternative to ACADuser's suggestion is to shrink the one hole to one of the excluded room sizes amd add other holes sized to the adjacent excluded rooms with holes separated by the thickness of the walls you want included. The LA polyline area will be correct, but Chief's auto LA calcs will not. Hope this helps.

This morning I traced everything and used Ryan's 2x2 wall idea in a few areas. I noted those walls that needed to be 2x2 (and 2x8 in the case of three walls). The two bathroom 2x8 walls aren't required - but chief won't automatically draw the openings as "through" unless they are closer together. I'm not sure why the architect drew the one Greatroom wall using 2x8. Everywhere else 2x6 works fine. For me personally, Chief has never shown angled corner framing correctly - it only draws full studs. But if I can draw the wall, the framer chalks it, then cuts all top/bottom plates to match, then goes back later to create the corners using studs with ripped angles. For this reason I rarely show wall framing. Chief also doesn't handle firestopping issues created by doubled/angled walls and the chases/spaces they create within. A framer knows how to deal with this in the field. It would be nice to see the Architect's framing plan, to see what they intended. Too much of this easily matched up for me to blindly repeat my tired mantra that architects should be required to frame 5 years min. before being licensed - like most of our trades are. Hope this helps.

Unfortunately that loses the hinges on the fixed panel - perhaps you could call this out in the comment on the schedule? I tried placing two doors side by side and independently specifying the doors. This works, but they are both shown in the schedule independently and when mulled together the locks/handle information is suppressed. Again this could be called out in the comment on the schedule. I hope this helps.

Try this.

First, why do you need the wall doubled? Most additions are 3 walls plus a pre-existing shared wall. Foundation is dug under the 3 new walls and the existing foundation is relied upon for the shared wall. What is the doubled wall bearing on? Why not just use a ledger header bolted to the top of existing wall on the new side? Second, placing a 1" gap between the double walls allows them to coexist. This is how I show finished areas in basements without building a new wall type. Third, why not just build the new wall layer? Here's a 1 hour fire wall example we use in duplexes. Make a copy of your interior wall type then in the dbx copy the framing inside the main layer and place a 1" air gap between the framing. Alternate your studs to reduce sound transmission.

I recreated every one of your walls this morning and never once saw the problem. I'm fairly certain it is your floor, but you've only provided us this little gem: And I've been unsuccessful at guessing what combination of platform settings would recreate your problem. Gene asked for the plan file to eliminate this guesswork. We're here to provide you a solution. Don't want to send us that plan file? Export the walls, import them into a new plan file, recreate a 4 walled room with the interior drywall extending below the floor deck (like your original 3 pictures) and send us this plan file instead. Whilst doing so, you may discover what setting caused this problem. And if not, we are all here to help.

In case you wanted an answer to your original question, when you create the custom field check off "Format as a Number" Then open your window schedule and click on "Number Formatting" You'll find custom field "Elevation" is missing from this table. I created an "Elevation2" and "Elevation3" as a example. For both I checked "Format as a Number" and both appear in this table. I then formatted Elevation2 and left Elevation3 unformatted. Look at the results. Lastly, %bottom_elevation% reports in raw inches to begin with. I had to change my window elevation reference to "Absolute" to get the second floor window bottom elevations to measure from 0. I am curious how you were able to mix the measurements in the same line. Your W02 measures Bottom Elev. from floor elevation, while both Comments/Elevation measure from Absolute.