HumbleChief

Gonna try that...

Interesting as the current lookouts are let in to the rafters instead of riding over them.

Thanks Michael, I think X13 will auto frame these 'purlins'?

Thanks Chop, X13 will do this auto? And perhaps that alludes to Michael's post labeling them purlins that can be auto framed in X13? I can get the lookouts sized and spaced to look OK then I guess I can turn off auto roof frame and manually place them. Was hoping for an auto method but perhaps X13?.

Can it be done? Thanks

Your confusion is understandable. The ceiling break lines cannot be selected individually and then their layer turned off. You have to simply know what they are. I once turned off all layers and ran through layers one by one to learn what those lines are and now just know, but otherwise there's no real way to understand what they are.

Thanks for posting that video Michael. In my experience it's the small changes that make work flow just that little bit better even though there probably won't be a blockbuster feature that will change that work flow in a large manner but the little things add up.

Todd, looks like a worthy upgrade and these threads can be very valuable for future purchases but can't quite understand the details of your test. You ran a RayTrace on a file - which file? Under default in Chief? What is default under Chief? Can you please post a little more detail, or even the RT file so we can get a better grip on the results? THANKS ...and typically RayTracing use the CPU and not the GPU but I wonder how much effect the powerful 3080 had on the results - if any.

Thanks Steve, I've got a system in place but will make time to watch your videos to see what I can learn. Larry

The framing model above was created using Chief of course and was created with the client's desires (for one) to run T & G ceiling boards longitudinally along the rafter/beams hence the purlins (or whatever one chooses to call those cross members) and by using TJI span tables and anything else I thought was relevant to the structural design. All of my designs leave my desk to a structural engineer's, every time on every job, to work up beam sizes, shear, foundation, connection etc. details. That framing plan was a very heavy lift with Chief and as I posted above, was intended only to show Chief's capabilities, minus the pain it took to get there. "I knew that Revit was the most-powerful-but-cumbersome program, and so I figured that it would give me the highest skill and ability ceiling.... thing is, even with that consideration, I still underestimated just how cumbersome the program really is." I am still surprised at how 'cumbersome' Revit appears every time I see it in action but have never used it so grain of salt and all that. I have also found that certain software programs will fit certain brains better than others. For example I tried SolidWorks and the interface made me nuts, settled on OnShape for my CAD work as the interface fits my brain better. Your brain might fit Revit's workflow and interface and obviously some are not only comfortable but more than capable using the program. I have fought Chief's interface for years and my brain just works differently than its paradigm and design intent. Multi story buildings are modified from the top down, not like you build from the bottom up and where else, and in what program, when moving down to a slab foundation would you get controls for room ceiling height? And a floor height? And the option for a roof? And some arcane "Room Supplies Floor For Room Above" nomenclature that many here on this forum can make sense of and operate through that bit of crazy with no problems. I've been using Chief for over 20 years and cannot understand how, when moving down to a slab foundation any of that is possible but it makes my point about the importance of the interface and whether your brain can deal with the paradigm and intent of the software you choose. I'm posting a pic of the dialog box you get when moving down to the foundation 'floor' with a monolithic concrete slab - notice you are in a Chief version of a 'room' - still do not understand it but maybe you will? Either way best of luck no matter.

Keep us posted on how this comes out please.

Instead of creating a ceiling plane that's 24" lower, Rise the roof height 24" as in the dbx below to get the results in the pic. ceiling truss.plan

Hooty, trusses will draw between roof and ceiling planes so the idea is to create a ceiling plane that's 24" lower that your roof plane, same slope obviously, then draw a truss adjusting heights as needed for your outside walls. The trick is then to get the trusses to rest on the outside wall top plates and perhaps the smart guys can help with that? I think there's a setting but it's eluding me. ceiling truss.plan

Great points John and brings up another issue we all run up against, dealing with plan checkers then field inspectors. We try and get plans through plan check by hook or by crook then rely on field inspectors to approve any deviations from the plans that still represent competent and code compliant building practices. The dance is always the same and we have all experienced both reasonable and clearly incompetent plan checkers and inspectors as well.

Been there more than once and have found no argument for a policy that's not ambiguous and for a building official who decided to enforce that policy where others have not. The code you referenced has no accommodation for anything over 12 ft. and it seems the plan checker has every right to require engineering even though other have not. That inconsistency within cities drives me nuts. In our City of San Diego there's a height limit certification issued by the FAA that must be signed stating that your 2 story building won't be hit by an airplane in certain areas of the City. NOT making this up. A few plan checkers are embarrassed by the requirement and ignore it while others can't/won't ignore it. Again super frustrating, and in this case downright stupid and literally requires an act of Congress to change and I tried to get it changed but ran out of energy. So yeah, never been enforced before but look, here's the code. Not sure what you can do about it. Oh and the client's involved in the interpretation? They need to be educated as well but can be even more frustrating.

Steve, is it possible that the local building official can't certify anything over 12 ft. without an engineer's stamp because the IRC code doesn't address nor accommodate any structure over 12 ft.?

Here's a couple of RayTraces from the build above meant only to show Chief's capabilities. You can also see the steel beams designed to support the indoor climbing rock...

..and as always this discussion goes to the heart of your business model and your intention as a designer. From your initial post "I'm trying to steer my life in a direction that will have me designing and building one-off, small but beautiful homes/cottages for clients, and friends/family." That could be your current goal and if it remains your business focus then learning programs like Revit and ArchiCad will be a pretty heavy lift for such modest goals BUT those programs will set you up not for 'if' but 'when' those goals change. Really not sure what I would do if I was younger because I find both Revit and ArchiCad cumbersome at best and Chief, again as the discussion always turns, fits my business model. Again best of luck whatever you decide.

Here's a house plan created in 2013 for a home I designed for a client in Squaw Valley, Lake Tahoe area. I'm including a screen shot from Chief and it will be hard to ignore how crummy it looks but there were over 60 iterations of the design and I don't have time to find the best representation and you'll just have to trust that the design and 3D were complete and the construction was permitted and built as the actual pictures of the home under construction depict. If I had to tackle this job today with Chief I wouldn't hesitate and would be much quicker with the skills I've gathered since. There were steel beam superstructures, glass embedded into rock. Crazy stair details, a climbing rock inside the living room and a few other details baked in. Again the 3D from the plan I chose is pretty sad but the design was done completely in Chief.

Late to this great discussion and some very good points from everyone. I've been using Chief for over 20 years for small, residential construction with a couple of fairly crazy designs thrown in and it fits my business model to a 'T'. If I had ambitions of entering into the world of extremely eclectic design then Chief would not be my choice. Even though the program can be stretched to do much more than initially meets the eye some of the steps take many years of knowledge or the knowledge of this great forum to complete. I don't have any experience with other CAD building software because as I mentioned Chief fits my business model perfectly. I watched some of the Revit video above and was once again struck with the amazing complexity of the program for designing a rather simple house. Sure the design is 'modern' but it is at its core a fairly conventional built with conventional wall and roof structures with an ode to modern design. The one thing you will notice in the over an hour long video is the presenter (extremely talented) doesn't show you the kitchen cabinet design and a lot of detail that's shown in the final renderings. Look for a video showing how Revit handles those things and the 'families' of cabinets you must purchase to have even 1/10th the capabilities of Chief and its cabinet and kitchen bath design tools. I'm convinced that the house shown in the video could be created by an expert Chief user in half the time with excellent results. The down sides with Chief are that with the complexity of Revit comes the detailing and other capabilities that Chief lacks. But as far as designing that 'modern' structure, which again is only modern in design but not structure, give me Chief all day long. For truly eclectic designs Chief will be difficult but for a house like that shown in the video Chief won't even break a sweat. Best of luck in your search and again the previous advice has been very valuable and hope this might help a little as well.

THANKS Eric!!!

Doesn't seem to be a link in the announcement page. thanks

https://www.google.com/search?q=alternatives+to+CamScanner&oq=alternatives+to+CamScanner&aqs=chrome..69i57.400j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Long time user of Chief here and can appreciate the difficult learning curve but all the things you are asking about can be done with Chief. Finding where those changes need to be made can be daunting at first look but once understood Chief can be very powerful for the needs you've outlined above. The advice given above to check the help files and to learn the specifics more on your own is given knowing that when a user dives in and learns Chief's nuances without absolute specific help the user is better served long term. Frustrating because Chief's learning and programming paradigm is very specific to Chief and can defy logic (or some people's version of logic, mine included) at many turns but once understood, as alluded to by many within this post, can be very powerful. One distinction that any Chief user should understand is the 'defaults', mentioned above many times, are plan specific and 'preferences' are global and affect every plan. The 'defaults' are where you want to create and save your plan specific dimensioning preferences as well as many other specifications, then use that plan as a 'template' for future plans as it will retain your default choices. Many of us revisit those 'templates' and update them with any modifications as needed, resave and use again. Hope that helps and good luck.

Yes highly recommended unless you need to pass the structure through a city's engineering department because as soon as you cut a hole in any wall that wall becomes structurally compromised and another, separate, super structure needs to replace that compromised structure. In a back yard with no inspections? Golden. In a regulated city environment? A real challenge.