HumbleChief

Here's the older send to layout dbx I was talking about. If you have this dbx, uncheck the box. Newer versions have eliminated that option cause it only caused confusion. Sorry if you are using X12 as the advice does not apply.

Michael, What version are you using? I thought there were older versions where there was a check box to send as new layout set or something like that, where every time you sent a view to layout it would create a new default set? Might not be remembering that correctly but when sending your view to layout see if that check box is there for a new default set. If it is make sure it is not checked. If you are using X12 then not much help I'm afraid.

That's pretty bizarre behavior. I keep it on so have not experienced that. Should it be addressed? Dunno...

Interesting, never looked at it that way and was never really bothered by it but understood if it bothers others.

Why can't you just turn 'on' auto build terrain? The icon should then disappear.

After re-reading your posts I don't think my plan will help much. Let us know what you end up doing please.

I'm not sure that simply lowering the roof on a second floor might create the same look, perhaps no need to create a '0' height second floor, just a cantilevered second floor?.

Kevin, Here's a plan with a '0' height second floor that can be cantilevered over the first floor to get your 2 x 10 floor joists to extend past the first floor plate. The roof can then be manually lowered to create the overlap of the rafters over the joists. The upside is that it will frame automatically the down side is it may not be practical for your total design intent. ROOF_1.plan

Here's the plan file of that drawing if it might help... GAS_ISOMETRIC.plan

We also live in a VERY different environment here in Southern California and I can't think of a framer who would even LOOK at a header detail (other than size L x W) as we mostly spec wall thickness headers 4x 6x etc. in a structural setting and insulating a header is pretty much unheard of from my experience here at least.

VERY interesting and thanks so much for taking the time to explain. Wonder if any of the the smart guys (you included of course) will come up with an answer to your question. Good luck...

Thanks Rene, It just seems to mess me up at some point in the design process. Keep framing/retain framing/posts to footings/footings/plank materials/rim joists materials. At some point I seem to lose the plot and am sure it's very much user error. Perhaps I just need to set up my template more accurately as you have done?

Apologies for not being able to answer the question you clearly posted twice, wish I could be of some help and perhaps I'm just lazy but why wouldn't you just deal with the condition with a detail? Would your framers need that kind of plan view to build the headers correctly and to your liking? Genuinely curious about the need for your request. Thanks.

...mostly thinking about 'Deck, Balconies and Porches' as they all seem to behave just a bit differently but those differences can often throw me and I'll revert back to 'unspecified' so I can manage the behavior I'm familiar with. I currently have 2 'decks' on a house and can't decide to leave them as 'decks' or switch to 'unspecified' to keep sane - or go more insane trying to manage a room that's a deck as not being a deck? You?

I have found that for me and my clients giving them what they 'want' can take many different forms. When I find out what they really want, and as you probably know it can be very difficult for them to make that initial decision, then the form has at least a decent chance of meeting that want. If they show me a picture of a triple gable and she (yes as you also realize 'she's' making most calls) is excited about the look, then I'm excited too and will do everything to get that look for them. I guess I could sit them down and make them read a book as to why their excitement is unfounded but there's just no place in me for that design approach. BTW your design help for the OP as always is very, very helpful whereas my rant is certainly not so I'll stop.

Yeah I'm sure the author has put tremendous effort in to detailing the way a certain style of house should look but I bristle at the idea that there is definitive 'good architecture.' I also have experience as a general contractor with architects who beat their clients in to 'design submission' because certain design elements were proper or correct according perhaps to a book of some kind. The clients just gave up what they really wanted because the architect knew better. Vowed I would never do that as a designer.

Kyle, my deepest apologies, but I think I should be the one to decide what the principles of "true Architectural design" truly are. If there are any designs out there that need my input as to the proper design criteria please post them on this forum and I will tell you what is correct and proper and what is not. By the way I have plenty of clients that I have bullied in to thinking that what they want is not what they want and have set them straight and shown them the proper principles and what they really want. I don't understand why they haven't recommended my services but at least they got what I wanted instead of what they wanted. Very good feeling - Back to work...[/sarcasm] From Get Your House Right...."She presents the definitive guide to what makes houses look and feel right." Really? There's a definitive guide? Will never read nor consider reading anyone who thinks this might be true. Just sayin'.

Been using the 3900X for a long time now with no issues other than running Chief and all software flawlessly.

I wonder if Plan Views could be set up to include scale sent to Layout? Not sure it would address the issues with text size but might be a nice feature?

Great video, learned a couple things and Scott is a very, very good presenter...

I appreciate anyone and everyone's work flow and the tools they choose to use but it might be important to point out how Saved Plan Views actually work. Not to change anyone's mind regarding same, or to change the tools any user should choose, but to ensure that those who choose to understand them better have accurate information if they decide to use them. So for anyone who would choose to learn more about Saved Plan Views the user does not have to "create (sic) even more defaults and even more layers and more, more, more." As a matter of fact if you already have Annotation Sets (now called Default Sets) the user doesn't have to recreate ANYTHING to use Saved Plan Views. Just insert the already created Default Sets in to a Saved Plan View. There is no "more, more, more" needed. I have no dog in whether someone uses Saved Plan Views or not but the information in these threads should be accurate at least, I think, for those who want to learn how they work.

Sorry for the confusion Chris, my reply was to Joey who I don't think understands SPV's and clearly does not like them. Your post was very clear, accurate, and the pics included very helpful. From my experience a user within Saved Plan Views does indeed have to "create a specific dimension default for a specific saved plan view, and a specific layer for that dimension default to reside on." I was trying to explain to those who do not want to use SPV's that what you suggested is exactly what one does with ANNO sets - that is - "create a specific dimension default for a specific Anno Set, and a specific layer for that dimension default to reside on." Same exact steps in ANNO SETS as in SPV's just a different name. Again sorry for the confusion...

Chief has traded simplicity for user power. The set up can be complex but the power is very useful when understood fully.

Creating a specific dimension default etc. is something that's already been done for those who prefer to use Annotation Sets. Do you not understand this? Curious Joey, why do you choose to disparage SPV's in any thread that promotes or explains Saved Plan Views to those who want to understand them better? You clearly don't like them, don't use them, nor understand them so why must you comment in ways that are certainly not helpful nor productive? Again, curious.

Michael, here's my edited truss using your video as a guide. Down right easy without the layer locked.. Thanks again.