HumbleChief

Let me know if this helps.

Hey Scott, looks like Dave's views (above) are RT's from his RTX 3070 video card not the 3D viewer. Not so much apples to apples. How are you generating that picture view? Perhaps I could generate something similar for you to compare, if that might help.

...or at least look seriously into what it will take to complete a shipping container home. Will there be permits? Or is this a backyard project with no inspections? If it's a permitted project let's just say you will have a lot of fun getting the engineering done as a start. There's a couple threads here re: shipping containers that might be enlightening. As far as your picture it looks like there might be some roof framing that's not showing that makes it looks like your roof is too high. You can adjust the roof framing, turn its layer on if it's not, or perhaps lower the roof but getting a plan so we can view it is your best bet.

Got it, and thank you, and as always didn't explain myself as well as I could have but your help is always appreciated. I have X13 but have been hesitant to use it as I found a couple of bugs rather quickly and want to finish up a couple of plans in X12. Didn't know about the ceiling height below change in X13. I'll move to X13 sooner rather than later.

Thanks Michael, the air gap was there to even the second floor floor heights allowing the ceiling heights below to be adjusted if needed. I finally worked it out by ensuring the first floor ceiling heights did not need adjusting, locking the "floor bottoms" when altering the framing on the second floor and now the first floor rooms throw the "can't adjust ceiling heights because the floors above are at different heights (sic)" but now, no need to do so. Here's a pic of the framing showing the 16" deep TJI's and beams and the 2 x 12 deck joists, both running in unexpected directions but verified in the field. I can now get this to my engineer without having to explain in word only. Thanks Chief, and thanks for the help.

It looks like the technique has to include a first floor ceiling height that doesn't need to change before messing with the second floor framing. That way the ceiling heights don't NEED changing when the floor heights above no longer match? Make sense?

Thanks very much for taking the time Mark, and yes getting rid of the air gap works on this simple plan but the warning about ceiling heights can't be adjusted because the floor heights above vary returns and in the actual plan I need that option to change ceiling heights. I'll look again but I THINK I need the air gap?

Not sure how you all would handle this condition. There is a second floor living area that sits on 12" TJI deep framing and outdoor living area that sits on 2 x 8 framing. If only the floor heights are adjusted then there's that warning about ceiling heights on the floor below can't be changed because the floor heights above vary. Adding an air space to the 2 x 8's brings the floor heights to equal but the framing at the railings and wall transitions are raised over the air gap. It can be handled with a detail but am wondering how you all might deal with the same condition? Thanks FLOOR JOISTS.plan

Yes there are ways (better?) other than the expected method of selecting objects and inspecting them in the ALDO to see which layer they are on but that's the point. If you don't know the miriad of methods available in Chief, as a new user, it can be frustrating. Why can't that dashed line be selected in plan view to inspect its layer and turn it off/on like every other item? Why does that dashed line ignore every attempt to select it other than creating a CAD detail? Long time users have figured it out, but why does it need figuring out by side stepping all of Chief's conventions of selecting objects and their layers?

I went through the process many years ago by turning all the layers off, then on, one by one until the 'ceiling break lines' appeared. Can't be selected to learn the layer they are on and haven't been selectable for many, many years. There is STILL no better way to find their layer than the method above and the tips suggested.

Thanks for the great tip as always Glenn. Perhaps it will help the OP as well.

Hi Doug, I wonder if you might extend a small courtesy and let me know if the picture attached is not what you are looking for. If not, again please let me know and I'll stop trying to help or perhaps you can explain a little better what you are looking for? Best of luck either way.

Let me know if this helps. I THINK what I did was add another floor that the roof lives on then used Glenn's suggestion of adding a railing on the attic level, changing that railing to a wall, raising it up, then back to a railing wall with a "Raise Bottom" to clear the roof below, the adjusting height again. Apologies as I could not really duplicate what I did and it's an X13 plan so hopefully it will help somewhat and hopefully it's what you are looking for. Tried it in X12 and could not get it to work again, so maybe not so much help... 562403700_GREENROOF1.plan

Didn't know that - still appreciate it.

Thanks you guys, this feature is simply brilliant. Takes the worry out of migrating from version to version.

Worked a treat - thanks so much for the quick response and a GREAT new feature.

THAT'S pretty amazing. I'll give that a go.

Curious too about bug fixes too. I ran into 2 rather quickly...

I was just noting that X13 is out of Beta and have a question that I think is an easy one. I earlier upgraded to X13 and migrated all of my templates libraries etc. but found a couple bugs in X13 and have not used it much but for one plan set. I have changed a couple of my working X12 templates in the meantime and don't really want to simply upgrade my current X13 install but rather delete the current install and re-install the newest version and migrate those altered templates etc. from X12 into the latest version. Should it be that simple? Or is there a landmine I could be missing?

Understood and agree but for me the string location may clutter things up a bit. I'll try both and try not to hide a general note under the donut. Maybe like this?

Matches my experience as well and any good builder will not want details to get in his way to 'build it right' or exceed any detail that may be an actual bare minimum and only code compliant. I have not added any V.I.F notes to dims on an 'as built' but will start today. Will probably add a general note instead of adding to the dim string but will add something.

That's a really good summary in my opinion and very close to practices I've adopted over many years of measuring 'legacy' as built properties. As to #1 I will use existing blue prints as a starting place for the initial measure but never rely on them as I have never measured a house that was actually built to that legacy blue print. Difficult for some clients to understand as they sometimes feel half the work is already complete but I make sure they understand before beginning. I don't measure exteriors any more and find #4 to be one of the most important tips to getting at least close to the existing floor plan. With #5 a close second. Internal walls with drywall on a standard 2 x 4? Or older construction with plaster on a true 2 x 4? The one thing that I've never resolved in any legacy measure is the 1/8's, 1/4's, and 1/2's that get eaten when measuring. Round up? Round down? Measure to the 1/8 of an inch? As those roundings accumulate there always seems to be an inch that goes missing. It's an art as to where that missing or additional inch should go and placing it in the wrong location can be a lot of no fun. I think that last comment regarding any measure as an art instead of a dead on science might the most appropriate and knowing a bit about construction and what comes next allows for that art to create a set of plan that won't sabotage the builder.

I understand all the (childish IMO) down votes but just think how awesome the Style Palette could be if given more effort and energy. A modern interface with its own menu options instead of being hidden in the library with a fairly awkward interface. More options and capabilities could make it the go to feature for kitchen and bath design. I would use it on almost every design. Of course it would take more resources and the ROI might not be immediately evident, or non-existent, but the feature would be fully fleshed out and eminently more useful. Not an easy decision for the Chief development folks but I think if there were fewer, fully complete features it would simply, again, make Chief better software.

Yeah I figured that post might have ruffled a feather or two and even garner a couple of those delicious down votes but most likely from those who don't know me nor understand why I would post what I did. I've been using Chief for over 20 years and absolutely love the software as it's provided a living for myself for those 20 years and it just keeps getting better and better. I've been to Coeur D'alene to Chief headquarters and had dinner with the development team. There isn't a better group of men and women and have had nothing but a great experience with everyone involved. But (you saw the but coming) there is a corporate mentality or paradigm that allows for new features to be introduced, sometimes finished sometimes not, then abandoned, never to be improved or polished to their best potential. Never understood that methodology. Another great example in my world at least is the reference layer set feature. Outstanding to say the least but within that outstanding feature is the glass house rendering ref set. Simply doesn't work in real life and just sits there, unfinished. Just think of the potential that feature could have. Add a couple of rendering technique options like line drawing, give it some more flexibility as to how the ref sets layer interact with different rendering techniques and that feature sings. Or wait for feedback and have a team that focuses on finishing and improving each newly introduced feature but "there are far more important things on our todo list." I get it. How long has kitchen partitions been on the todo list? Really makes my point. I also understand completely what becomes a priority within any software development environment and features that are not 'finished' (my term) are very low on that list. Again understood and give much credit to the team for the work they do but what I am suggesting is not intended as a dig against the company but is instead intended to make Chief better software.

If there's no Style Palette Option then it can not be used in a Style and I think the list of objects that can be used is just long enough to give the impression the tool might actually be useful but it is a long running Chief tradition to almost finish a feature then leave it in that unfinished state never to be revisited or 'fixed'. I used the feature once then reported that the partitions (cabinet drop down) that are used in almost every kitchen are not part of the objects that can be specified for a style palette. Tried to make it work but gave up as the effort was more than the 'Style Palette' saved and have never used the feature again. Maybe you'll have better luck but for me the Style Palette joins a fairly long list of features that had so much potential but ultimately abandoned by Chief after their introduction before they could reach that potential. And yes, I am not happy that Chief spends so much effort introducing half finished 'time saving' features only to find they save no time at all. Again you may have better luck but I could never get the feature to be truly useful. Never really understood the mentality about introducing a feature then never really polishing up to its potential but the Chief guys seem to think it's OK but it is, after all, their software.