plannedRITE

Let us know what part is stumping you so that we can hopefully get you pointed in the right direction. There aren't to many steps to copy this. Here's a quick, ugly example but when I run into similar stairways I typically do a good portion of the work in an elevation view using some quick cad lines as a reference and to give snapping points to get the wall slope right. Make that stairwell it's own room with a room divider at the foot. Manually bring down one corner of the adjacent wall to slope it to match the stairs. It should be very similar to building out any stairwell inside of a home. Potentially easier is to break up the wall, make the sloped portion a solid railing, and set it to follow stairs. I have issues occasionally with this so I often revert to manually moving it.

What did you change exactly? Mine won't build like that but continues to build as I screenshot in my last comment.

Not at all, it works beautifully out of the box. Other than when I'm not in office and using Chief on a laptop or hooked up to a TV, I've only every used ultrawides with Chief. Prior to this one I used a typical 21:9 34" that I moved to my draftsman's desk. The extra space is wonderful to work with while not requiring me to move back and forth between monitors.

I sure can, that's part of the workaround. Change that height and manually drag the bottom of the wall on floor 1 up. But that's a big part of this overall issue, that the footing and stem isn't following the floor height of the room that it should (in theory) be assigned to.

Interesting, that's a breakthrough for me. I haven't seen that documented anywhere but that will probably fix a number of foundation issues I've brought on myself. That explains the first part of the issue I've had. As for the second issue of that stem wall/footing between the 2 pours, is there a chief recommended way (that you've seen) to have it built at the correct elevation? Instead of having it drop down like so:

Sure, here is a screenshot-

You're, of course, correct in that that is how it should behave (and almost always does). Unfortunately, that is not always the case. This situation is a good example of that, setting the exterior side in the correct orientation (or even reversing it as a test) does not change the wall/footing from grabbing properties from the patio (incorrect). Seeing that there is no chief recommended way (if anyone would like to show me otherwise I would be ecstatic!), the downvote is pretty darn unhelpful.

Man, you are missing out. Hop on the 21:10 curved ultrawide bandwagon and never look back!

Back to workarounds but I have it displaying correctly. Chief needs to allow us to choose what room a wall will pull its properties from, that would fix this issue and others that result in manual workarounds. All of the mono pour areas (rooms and footings) have to be set to the same pour number (though this is incorrect). Then the shared walls footing height has to be set 4" shorter. Then you have to manually drag the bottom of floor 1's wall up 4". The corner that stays down also has to be manually dragged up 4". This is an issue with lowered mono slabs across Chief.

LG 38GN950-B Excellent monitor, I spent too long researching before pulling the trigger on this one. I always refer to rtings.com when it comes to purchasing monitors. The renewed one is darn cheap on Amazon right now, I'm shocked.

Yes, the point-to-point move issue has driven me nuts for quite a while. I've brought it up in the past but have just been told (can't remember if by chief or other users) "you're moving too fast!" Not a good answer, I sure would like that fixed as well.

3840x1600 primary monitor (I'll NEVER go back to a 16x9 as my primary display again) and 2 2560x1440s on the sides. Primary always runs chief. Left monitor usually runs my browser (emails, forums, IRC, parcel viewer, etc.) and the right generally runs PDFs, pictures, or youtube/plex for videos while working. The right monitor is also on a fully articulating arm so that when clients sit on the opposite side of the desk I can move the monitor to keep it between us for easy reference. Google display below for calendar/time/smart home controls. Phone site below as well on a stand. 43" TV on the wall between my draftsman's and my desks. It is used as digital signage, rotating wallpaper of projects we've worked on (clients love this and frequently use images that pop up as a reference when the meet us in office) or our project management queue in Trello. My draftsman sits behind me and hooks his laptop up to an ultrawide primary display in the middle with a 16x9 on the opposite side, also giving him a 3 display setup like mine. I use a Master MX Master 3 mouse, the extra per app controls are extremely useful in Chief. I'm a keyboard nerd and have built a ton, this setup works best for me. 65% with a macropad to the left, the macropad has a handful of hotkeys for chief tied to it as well as being a numberpad. I'll eventually pick up a spacemouse, I just don't have much space for it... I think that covers everything?

This uses both "walls with footings" as well as the mono slab and isn't automatically built. Unfortunately, that does not fix the issue here.

It really depends on what roofline you are going for. I only leave auto roof build on for very simple structures, almost any design we do has the planes drawn manually. Not the answer that you are looking for but it may be what needs to be done. You will want to share your plan with us, as TeaTime mentioned it's a bit difficult for us to help in these situations from screenshots. I tried to quickly replicate your layout and it built out that upper wall for me but we probably have different options enabled.

When a new foundation (mono pour) is attached to an existing dropped mono foundation (such as a patio), the shared foundation wall between the two tends to always follow the defaults of the lower floor/foundation. This causes the footing to display improperly in plan AND 3D views. The situation where we consistently run into this is with additions that are built up against an existing patio and the addition will be a mono pour (though there are still issues when the addition is a stem wall footing). We draw the existing first, with the livable rooms on floors 1 & 0 along with their footing walls generally as pour 1 and then the patio room on floors 1 & 0 along with their footing walls as pour 2. Then we add the addition with it's rooms & footings marked as pour 3. The shared footing between the addition and the patio marked as pour 3 to try to tell Chief what room that footing should look at. As you can see in the pictures here, the shared footing wall will drop down, which affects the wall above as well. In a plan view, each of that footing wall is reversed. I've had this show correctly on occasion but it seems to be the luck of the draw...which is why I feel that there is a setting that I have selected on occasion? Guidance would be greatly appreciated, I've attached this example plan in the drive link..thank you all. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XlI-C1x_CO0RCo0Kf9BjaZDeRwyNqAvR/view?usp=drive_link

We've recently switched to showing our thicker walls (8"+) as being double framed, per the request of some of the builders we work with. However, there is now an issue with Chief's headers that I can't find a fix for. When a second framing layer is added to a wall definition, Chief will double up the headers at an opening placed in said wall. So if I have a (2)2x6 specified at an opening in a 12" wall (framed with 2 rows of 2x6) it will build (4)2x6. You can see an a GLB example in the screenshot I attached. This happens when using a furred wall or moving the second framing layer out of the main layer. It works properly if the second layer isn't noted as a framing layer but is there a way (other than that or manually drawing/noting headers) that will keep the headers from doubling up? It may be an oversight and need implemented by Chief but it seems pretty obvious so there may be a setting. Thanks all

Thank you, Glenn! This is a good read that I wish I had gone through some time ago.

I'm not sure if this is a bug or if I'm missing an option but custom line styles do not seem to work as I would expect. When drawing details, the finest dashed out-of-the-box lines are generally spaced too far apart. It seems that no matter the length or spacing I set, it ignores it and spaces/sizes the dashes arbitrarily while also starting and ending each segment with a long, solid line. I've drawn these in different views and it seems to give the same result. I definitely do not want the long 3" solid line and I want these gaps/length to be accurate to what I am inputting. Here is a detailed screenshot of what I'm experiencing. I've usually just worked around it but I'd like to get this to work...what could I be missing?

This is actually what I ended up doing, hah. Thanks, you guys.

That was going to be my last resort but it looks like it's come to that. Thanks for the input!

No I did not, or I would not have posted. Placing an insertion point into a CAD block is obviously simple but it seems to not retain that point once assigned to a 3d object.

Is there a way to change the insertion point of a custom electrical fixture? I assume this issue applies to other symbols/fixtures as well. The example that I'm working with here is a regular recessed can that has a waterproof label on it. I'd like the insertion point to be centered to the can light and not the center of the full 2D block. It doesn't matter if I set the insertion point of the 2D block because as soon as it is assigned to the 3D object it ignores it. This quick picture for reference shows a regular light first, then the light with the assigned 2D block, then the bare 2D block properly using the insertion point. I hope there's a way to do this! It's obviously not the end of the world but it's driving me crazy anyways.

Thank you, that is the answer that I was looking for. Hope to see more information moving forward to show in what way the consumer will benefit from this billing shift.

Yes I did read through this but it doesn't say if SSA is an option at that point. SSA is included in the rent to own option at the moment but my questions is once he finishes the 24 months of payments and owns the perpetual license for that version, can he pay for SSA to ensure "free" upgrades to future versions just as it works now? It seems that he would then have to pay the subscription model to upgrade to the future versions.

Additional question: one of my draftsman has been using the rent to own option to have his own license. He is only about 6 months in. So when he finishes the 2 years and owns the perpetual license (X16 at that time, I'm assuming) what happens with SSA? Will he be able to pay the annual $595 a year to receive updates or be forced to pay the $2000 a year to keep his software current with mine so that we can actually work on plans together? I need to know what will happen there so that I can decide if I need to fork over money for additional licenses this month.