HumbleChief

Is that really that confusing?? or odd that one software application would work differently than another? When I work in Sketchup I simply adapt to its way of doing things. I don't post about how it should work like Chief. Seems such a small and easy thing to get used to, not really sure what the real issue is. I also don't think that 'lines' can be added or moved in a 3D view so how would they be moved using the 'Z' axis?

City of San Diego FAR includes the garage but in some areas you get a 400 SF credit for the garage. Some San Diego County cities use FAR and lot coverage. Others use only FAR, still others only lot coverage. The County of San Diego use another completely different set of parameters depending on the zone. Coronado another different look where you can gain FAR credits by performing certain tasks while building. And so on and so on.... I do 'research' on every project to define those parameters before anything is drawn. That reminds me Richard we have 'phantom floors' in some cities now as well. Those high attics and basements can count towards square footage sometimes, in some locales, in others not so much. It is a mine field no doubt.

If you are an architect you can probably do your own calcs. As a designer here in SoCal, like Perry said you need a licensed engineer to sign off on your plans.

Did not Know that - thanks Joey.

Look at the second mortar joint down, I'm saying that's all done by hand with p-solids to look more impressive than you can actually get from Chief OOB.

Johnny, you are in a 2D view. There is no 3rd 'D' or Z axis in that view.

Any needed engineering or even any questionable spans are handed over to my engineer who will mark up the plans and get me a set of calcs. for plan submittal. Why would someone want that liability when an engineer is employed for exactly that reason?

Arnstein, In the structure dbx, uncheck ceiling over this room and set the second floor above to 'open below'. I also set the wall framing to balloon though ceiling above. Looks like setting that second floor to open below might be enough. The answer to your second question is most likely yes.

AND it was touted as a new feature for the X8 update - an embarrassing lapse IMO.

Darned if I can find where that default setting might be...

Thx

Joe you're showing area.round(0) instead of x=area.round(0) is the x= needed?

Scott, see if this helps

My question is, how did this ever get out off the software engineer's desk and in to the program? And then remain in the program after a couple of updates? Really strange thinking IMO.

Tech is working on a fix and suggested a sofitt patch in the meantime.

You don't have to 'uncheck' anything, just open and close and they come back. Still weird, still not right, but I'm sure the Chief folks will get to the bottom of it.

I sent it in this morning along with the railing gap issue I was having. Tech support got back to me within 20 minutes with the advice I posted. They were not saying that Chief should behave this way, just that the solution offered would fix things short term while they looked into the issue further. And oh yeah, no need to thank all the posters who have helped out, we donate our time to help the best we can.

I'm pretty sure the tech person didn't intend it as a 'solution' but merely a short term fix as they looked into the reason the problem exists in the first place. It's definitely a bug and unintended behavior and the problem has been entered into their database.

Tech support suggested opening each attic wall and then simply clicking OK to close. The attic walls then regenerate. They do not know why they don't without that step but that seems to solve it. That change seems to persist after a plan 'save' so it should be good to use as a template.

Attic walls are building, they can be found on the attic level, but they are not showing and I can't get them to show. Very strange. The exterior walls can balloon through ceiling above and that attic space will fill but it's not a true attic wall. Stumped.

Not making light Michael and was trying to address Chop's specific question that I have no knowledge of. I wouldn't even know how to address it with tech support so I'll leave that in Chop's hands. The other issue I'll report later today.

Probably won't happen - just sayin'

I agree Johnny, great work around but this seems like it shouldn't need that work around. I'll send it in to tech if I can find time today.

Appreciate all the help. Great solution Glenn but a bit too complex me thinks for such a simple wall transition. I ended up using a doorway with a railing wall (no locate no room def) and it looks OK. Personally I don't think there's any reason that the 2 wall types shouldn't behave together but it's good know there's a couple of ways around the situation.

Sorry guys, I had to bail out for a few hours and thanks for the replies. I agree there are always a few ways to do things and will have to try a couple different techniques as it doesn't look like this technique will work but I think the question isn't why I can't figure out something so simple (I can and will) but more what is Chief doing to cause this anomaly that IMO should NOT be there? Why can't a user combine a railing wall with a regular exterior wall? Why is there a gap where the walls meet? Why doesn't a material region mask that gap? Is that expected? Or simply not allowed in Chief for some unknown reason? Again, many ways to 'work around' this but why should there need to be a way around this simple combination of railing and exterior walls?