HumbleChief

Any ideas involving 'greater restrictions' have to IMO be taken with a grain of salt. I had absolutely zero training before I became a home designer and that freedom allowed me to develop a thriving business without the restrictions that some claim are needed to create a more professional environment. Professionalism does not come with restrictions or regulations or whatever term you choose. Professionalism comes from an internal ethic that drives the entrepreneur to excellence in his/her business relationships. I remember a genuine red flag when dealing with other businesses when I was a general contractor and that was a BBB rating that the company would boast about. We had the worst luck with those companies pretending to be good business people because of a BBB 'A' badge or label or whatever you choose. We had much better relationships with simple, honest people who didn't pretend to be anything but simple and honest people. And then there were the 'architects' that we dealt with constantly. What a struggle that was. Details that couldn't b built; designs that didn't work, but they had all of the "mandatory schooling/internships/continuing education and licensing..." but...they had no sense of what the client really wanted, did not listen to those needs and designed homes that fit their training and the latest trends instead of what the client wanted, if it could be built at all. My point - all the "mandatory schooling/internships/continuing education and licensing" will have zero effect on the performance of a person within their business. The skills that are needed really can't be taught or regulated but are inherent with a person's personality and their ethical view of the world so in my opinion more " mandatory schooling/internships/continuing education and licensing" does nothing more than create more "mandatory schooling/internships/continuing education and licensing" without addressing what makes a business (any business) good, professional or whatever term you choose.

Thanks guys, will look over that vid when I get chance Michael.

I know, weird thread title but I can't seem to resolve a weird problem where I have a second floor with 11 7/8" TJI's and those TJI's extend to the rest of the house where there is no second floor. Is it bearing lines? Joist direction? Don't understand and any help much appreciated. FLOOR_JOISTS_1.plan

Reminds me a little bit about my current helper. He's young and sees a tech answer to every problem. "Let's get this app for this, it's so cool." I'll respond, "Yes it's very cool but what problem does it really solve?" Sometimes there really is a benefit but many times it's just more technology that does no real good in my real world business. We examine it with an open mind and together we either incorporate the new tech in to our work flow or get on with business as we can't see any real benefit. I use a lot of tech in my day to day business but most of the new stuff I can't find a real use for.

For me, in my business, there's seems to be a limited use for the most modern technologies. I still use a tape (both digital and tape measure) to measure my 'as builts' for the remodels I do despite all of the new apps that claim to do it better/faster with all of the digital blue tooth devices etc. I still sketch on a napkin when I can't quite visualize a concept and still rely on my building skills to help design an actual buildable structure with real world details. I LOVE all the 3D tools and use them to dial in a lot of designs and structures but see a limit as to how far they need to go to become a LOT more useful. I even think we are very close to the edge of every day useful technology and over that edge would have to be a killer app that changes everything we currently know about computer design but even then if you don't know how pieces of wood and concrete go together in a real house, in the real world, it will do the designer no real good. Chief Architect is a great example. What can they to dramatically improve their software? Lots of minor tweaks and usability stuff but any dramatic change will have to come from an entirely new look at computer modeling and even then the skills of a builder and that knowledge will always supersede any magic that the newest software might seemingly provide. Great software will always be one of many great tools but must always be used along side great skills and tools in the field where the treated plate meets the stem wall.

Found it under 'Grouped Kitchens' Best to all.

Contractor and business associate, when searching his X9 libraries, types in the word 'kitchen' in the search bar it returns over 10 different complete kitchens in different styles and configurations. I type in 'kitchen' and get a lot of stuff but no complete kitchens. Just downloaded core content again and no complete kitchens. Checked all filters etc. Curious as to what I'm missing and what I need to do to get those kitchens. Does everyone else get them? Is it a bonus catalog I can't seem to locate? Thanks

Viki, You definitely need a new computer guy. Unless you got the number wrong $1700 is WAY too much to do the work described. Here's a NewEgg link to many complete systems that cost less than that. https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 4814 601190701&IsNodeId=1&cm_sp=Cat_Desktop-Computers_1-_-Visnav-_-Intel-i7_4

Thanks for the continued effort Johnny but the framing you see was after many tries to get it right. It doesn't matter how it's framed or with what, it just picks up 12" from somewhere when trying build the foundation auto. Easy to get the stem walls right after the fact but it's the template no doubt, hanging on to 12" from some hidden setting.

Nice Eric - I'm going to forego the bamboo shoots.

I tried the plan with many many different framing defaults and configurations, always with that same 12" added in for the stem wall height. Like I just posted above it's not that hard to simply create an 18" stem wall but hard, considering the multiple defaults, to get one that behaves as expected every time, unless starting form absolute scratch.

Thanks Mick, Yeah there's something in my template that adds 12" to the stem wall min. height. May never be able to locate it but it's workable knowing same. The plan I posted came along after lots of time and lots of techniques to try and get the foundation to build auto. I deleted the foundation, changed every room's framing and defaults, and tried every change but that 12" remained. It's not difficult to simply get an 18" stem wall but building it auto just wouldn't happen with that plan. There are ways to accomplish things in Chief but sometimes the multiple default layers can be very confusing as what over rides what and when. For example if you set to build the foundation with walls with footings it will not build that foundation as long as the floor above is defined any other way. So the defaults of the floor above override the foundation settings. Then any floor structure tends to follow one or more defaults like Floor/Ceiling platform or maybe Current Floor default. It is indeed learnable but is as confusing as I have ever seen a software program behave. Again thanks to all for the input and help. EDIT: I see you did indeed delete EVERYTHING on my template plan to get the correct results. May have to do the same one day but my templates are treasures I hesitate change without a lot of forethought.

If you are asking how Chief might be able to recreate the structure you've defined automatically then it MIGHT be possible, or you could stick bamboo shoots under your fingernails, which would probably be less painful. I would take the route Chris (above) suggests and draw a plan view that represents the floor/foundation plan then add specific details to define the actual construction technique. The details you show, applied to their respective locations are pretty close to enough to complete your working drawings IMO. You will probably need a section to represent the construction but that's not too hard to accomplish with Chief's CAD tools. Again trying to get Chief to recreate that technique could be a very large handful.

thx

7820x? Curious - what is that?

NICE

A thought I just had about my current system and that it is at least 5 - 7 years old and hanging right in there for every day Chief use. It slows down with large models but I think it only makes the point about buying as much CPU as you can afford and hopefully your PC will be good for many years to come.

I might add to the great advice from Graham that it is important to know how you will use your PC now and in the future. I built a dual Xeon PC because I did a lot of RayTracing and wanted the speed improvements of multi core CPU's. Now, I hardly ever do a RayTrace so the the Dual Xeons are not that much better for everyday 3D rendering and are actually slower than some of the newer CPU's at Chief's everyday tasks. I also upgrade my video card to try and improve overall performance and saw zero real world difference between my older card and the newest 1080. So bottom line is know how you will use your PC. If it is for RayTracing ( as opposed to 3D rendering) then you need as much CPU muscle as you can afford, Intel or AMD. If you do more 3D Rendering then perhaps a mid range video card will suffice but buying as much CPU power as you can afford will always be a good investment.. Motherboards? Will you overclock? If so find a board that's easy to accomplish same otherwise just buy a mid range good quality board as they are mostly very good these days. Also look for a motherboard that can accommodate the fastest hard drives. The newest M.2 SSD's can add a LOT of performance so make sure the MB can accommodate the fastest SSD's around. The chart below is always helpful when trying to decide between relative CPU performance https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html Best of luck and please post with your decision and performance when you get your new machine.

Plan is in first post and the last couple videos show the 12" magic happening. Thanks again for your time.

Which I have done over and over again with the same results, there's an added 12" to the stem wall minimum in the foundation defaults dbx. Coming from where? I do not know but it's repeatable. Never name rooms other than a garage so that seems like an unlikely culprit.

Thanks Graham for your time. So let's say i want to set the default stem wall height for a crawl space in my plan. What (simple?) steps would I take and why? EDIT: unless it's not supposed to be simple in which case I understand...

Thanks Johnny. Yes your video makes perfect sense but it doesn't explain the behavior of my plan. I have 12" somewhere that gets added to the minimum stem wall height.for some reason that I can't figure out. Might indeed be my template but shouldn't any plan be able to set the default stem wall height and rebuild the foundation? Where is that 12" coming from? Dunno but thanks again for your time...

Thanks Perry but I never name rooms...

Tried it with the original plan with same results. Add the minimum stem wall to 12" and you get the proper stem wall height. Perhaps that 12" is spec'd somewhere else? Dunno but thanks for the help...

Is this expected behavior?