HumbleChief

I think both Joe, if I understand your question. I want the first floor elevation to remain which would push the basement level down to accommodate the new TJI's? And leave the 10 ft ceiling heights in the first floor. Then I'm thinking the second floor would move up to accommodate the new TJIs and leave that floor at 9 ft high, which I assume would move the roof structures up as well?

Another in a long line of questions regarding floor structures. In this case I have 2 floors that are now framed with 14" TJI's and the engineer thinks 16" TJI's will be better in the long run and allow us to use less costly steel and for other reasons. So I need to go in and change the framing from 14" TJI's to 16" and maintain all the floor heights etc. What's the best strategy? Plan here TJI Heights.plan

Nice tip Michael

Here's what I would do.

Doesn't create a whole new set of walls?

Robert try using a separate layer for each of your first floor exterior walls, that should allow you to show the first floor walls with your reference layer.

There's a paradigm within Chief that is very difficult for some people to grasp, me being one of them, and there's only one way to learn that paradigm and that's to thrash your way through many model types until it sinks in. I've used Chief at least 15 years and my brain just works in a different way than Chief wants it to and that's my loss. The only solution is to learn how Chief works, and it's very difficult for some and not so bad for others. I don't think it needs to be so difficult and hopefully newer versions will reflect that ease of use but it's ways off IMO.

A suggestion like this Bill is very valuable IMO. I think it is the cryptic messages and obtuse error messages that hide the solutions deeply in the minds of the programmers, while remaining completely hidden for the user. It wouldn't take much to explain the "Ceiling heights may not be changed..." message so the solution is clear but it's hidden very deeply within Chief's programming. It wouldn't take much to add a little larger section view with clearer explanations of each level and its effect on another level. It wouldn't take much to clarify what 'floor' really means, the first floor, the second floor, or the floor you walk on? I am under no illusion that the structure dbx will be wholly changed any time soon and rebuilding it from scratch would like be replacing the foundation of a house after its been built. There are however a few minor tweaks that would help clarify the purpose and intent of each part of the dbx that would help every user.

Windows 10: Microsoft under attack over privacy http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/31/windows-10-microsoft-faces-criticism-over-privacy-default-settings

Windows 10 is spying on almost everything you do – here’s how to opt out http://bgr.com/2015/07/31/windows-10-upgrade-spying-how-to-opt-out/

I installed Win 10 on my bookkeeping computer, single monitor, and it's up and running painlessly. I quite like it so far. Been on Win 7 for a long time with another Win 8 machine I don't use much.

Uh Rich...elite users? Don't forget I'll be there as well representing the bonehead users. I'll probably be the only one to survive such a calamity...

Good to hear it's working, thanks for the updates.

Probably true

Probably correct, thanks Mick.

I agree David and also think my above comment wasn't taken in the sarcastic spirit it was intended.

Not trying to justify my logic just more trying to point out what I would like to see in the structure dbx. I would like to see the ceiling and walls drop when the ceiling height is changed, AND have the floor of the room above remain where it is. I know that's not the way Chief works - I just wish it was. If you watched the video to the end, how else would you lower the wall height other than manually as I showed? There's no ceiling/soffit over that room just an open area. It's done now by manually changing the wall heights in 3D but again, just perhaps an illustration of a simpler way of approaching Chief. I also understand how complex the entire process is but I'm going to try and think of simpler ways Chief might work in the future.

That's the challenge in a nut shell - understanding how Chief is working. At some point I think it sinks in, where/when that point is, is another matter.

Scott, I included that last vid as maybe some fodder for some input/output during that meeting. If it's relevant fine, if not, fine too.

Here's another example of how my brain fights the way Chief works. Simple answer of course is to learn how Chief works but the illustration might be helpful if we choose to help re-design this function.

I agree, there's no reason to lend a helping to hand to anyone who doesn't speak my language or to anyone who has the courage and temerity to learn English as a second language.

Agreed, There's no simple answer and the structure dbx has been around for many, many years and many, many versions of Chief. I know that if Chief's programmers take on the challenge they will be wildly successful judging by all the recent changes but it is quite a challenge. Maybe the UGM meeting in Idaho will shed some light? Expectations are low but hope abounds.

There's some really good things about the current Structure dbx (actually can't think of any but that's a good way to start a discussion) and some bad things. Those good and bad things are only relevant if you can wrap your mind around the paradigm they've chosen. Somehow the 'structure' behaves best if working from the top down. That is NOT an easy concept to grasp for those who have built houses and not an easy concept to grasp for certain minds that work in a very logical fashion. Right now one must grasp the hidden intent within the structure dbx and there are some who have done this brilliantly, others not so much. I, personally, expect simple things to occur. I change a floor height, the floor height should change. And it will unless there are 4 or 5 other parameters 'in the way' of that simple task. Those 4 or 5 parameters are hidden from the every day user and until all those things are grasped the model does not behave in a simple manner. In the example I posted I changed the heights in one room and all the heights in every other room changed. That's not a problem if you truly understand what Chief is doing under the hood but I think it's too hard to really understand those mechanics. I work with Chief all day every day and usually don't have a problem setting up my structures and have dome some pretty complex models but when stuck I can't apply my version of logic to find my way out. I'll emphasize 'my version' because I think these things are personal. Not everyone has a problem, and I don't have a problem on every plan because I've learned what needs to done but sometimes it is genuinely crazy making, again, to me. To modify the structure dbx might be a huge task, might be a few simple tweaks and I would not want the program to try and fit itself to a single user's misunderstanding of how the program is designed to work but there's something not quite right if the task becomes so difficult that users cannot find their way out of difficulties.

CALIBZ, Welcome, Can only assume English is not your native language? If it's not please try some different words, if it is your native language please share what you're taking with the rest of us.

So I change the room structure dbx of the room with the incorrect room height to match all the correct room heights and all the floors of every other room are forced down? Really? Even though the floor of the room is the same, corrected height? IOW I set the floor height to -24" and the room height to 97" in a single room and all the other floors are forced down to -31"? What? Even the floor I set to -24" is forced down to -31"? Huh? That defies logic doesn't it? I set a floor height to -24" and it's forced down to -31" because??? When I match properties everything works out just fine. I'm glad someone understands this.