HumbleChief

Justin, I've also had some luck by printing a complete PDF file from Chief, then printing that PDF to your printer, and reducing the resolution in Chief's print to PDF dbx. As a matter of fact I ALWAYS print to PDF first, then to the print house or to my local printer.

Got it William thanks...

I would like to create a corner cabinet for a closet (see image below) that's not the default 24" deep and am stumped. Is there a depth setting I'm missing? SOLVED: Looks like it can be created by dragging the door front in plan view but not in the cabinet dbx...maybe. Thanks

I have a layer set that purposefully eliminates all furniture as a couple contractors I work with find it distracting.

So I'm thinking regarding that first video, the first step is going to the defaults and make sure things are correct there, then frame build foundation etc. The thing I never really saw in the defaults dbx (illustrated in Steve's video, and I assume in Michael's post re: defaults) is what might be considered a top down (as the list reads) priority for the default settings, for everything foundation/framing related.

GREAT video Steve! Thanks for taking the time to post, clarifies some issues for me...

Agreed, but the conversation continues to ignore the built in, intentional, complexity, that, making a point above, many users do not mind and me thinks actually prefer as this thread I think illustrates. M_Gia even made the point above that Why do we have to calculate anything? That's the software's job IMO but again Chief users don't seem to mind. I mind a lot, but the complexity rules the day and the simplicity that could be incorporated in to the interface, without sacrificing and power, is simply ignored. Something I've learned to live with, with the software and most users on this forum at least, who simply do not find that important. EDIT: I can clearly see the benefits of some of Chief's complexity and the options it affords the user but think there are areas that can be improved...

Most likely an accurate analysis and am trying to think of a way to make Chief's system of defaults more complicated and less easy to understand but simply cannot. Perhaps the complexity is needed to create the most powerful options within the software, or Chief just really doesn't know or care to know how to simplify the interface and operations for their user base. I get the strong feeling that the software engineers, and those who think along similar lines, have no problem with the built in complexity and perhaps prefer it. I do not, and think there's quite a bit of laziness built in to the system that preserves that complexity at the expense of easier understanding and a simpler approach within the interface. A very simple but illustrative example. When setting the stem wall height the user is forced to use a calculation to determine the actual stem wall height. Yes it's only adding 1 1/2" for the sill plate but in my opinion that calculation should be completely hidden from the user. Again in my opinion, it's lazy interface programming to expose the user to the need to do unnecessary calculations in their heads when entering data in to a dbx. In this case that calculation would be completely unnecessary if the software did the work in the background (which could be argued is the job of software) . Enter the actual stem wall height, the software uses the sill plate depth, which exists on another tab, and figures it out WITHOUT the user having to do the work. Instead the user needs to do a calculation to get the stem wall correct, which again might be the preferable method for those who like that approach but why add that layer of complexity for the user? Someone is making that decision. "But it's only adding 1 1/2" to a basic value please get over yourself," but that's not the point. The point is that the programmers place the work of the software, which is to do that calculation, on the user. Not a great GUI philosophy in my opinion and this same attitude can be seen throughout Chief. Some would argue, and certainly will, that the complexity adds power to the software which it certainly does, but why not do both? Why can't we have the power and a simpler way to get to that power? Really, why not?

This seems to frame up OK but a bit confused about the "but it seems to be a problem eliminating the rafters" Why eliminate them? From a specific view? As rafter tails? Here's a quick plan with the advice above framed up SIP_1.plan

Most likely the intended purpose but I too found nothing new and I always am able to find something. Hopefully it serves the purpose and new users can get a feel for how Chief works...

Yeah that's a little weird as if the default is over riding the room setting, which Chief will sometimes do and sometimes not and perhaps that was my expectation? Either way really appreciate all the help and know where to look next time...

Thanks Steve, I think that was exactly the issue. Hopefully I can remember for the future. Thanks again!! JUST saw your video and want to thank you again for your help, again exactly the problem, and solution...

That works OK but, of course, turns off auto foundation build. Not the end of the world but will keep in mind for sure. Thank you for your help Michael!!

Again your help and generosity does not go unappreciated but I think I've got a little better grip now... I just opened a new plan and everything seemed to go OK with a min. stem wall height of 19 1/2" for and 18" stem wall. Then I changed the framing for the joists with 'lock floor top' checked and it messed with the stem wall something terrible. With lock floor bottom checked it behaved much better. Always wondered what that setting for locking floor top/bottom was for but it is quite effective...

Count me as one of the bonehead 'everyones' I THINK I get that now. The best approach being to set the stem wall height in the defaults? I'll play a bit.

Couldn't find number 1) but I think using a default for floor '0' as the stem wall height plus 1 1/2" for the sill plate should at least me a chance to get it right...

I've posted before that I never type lol unless I'm actually laughing out loud.... LOL and thanks again for your help!!

Will do...plan is basic box so not much trickery but will check the defaults.

Glenn, You are always very helpful and your help is also always very much appreciated but your explanation is just beyond my comprehension and understanding. Maybe I really don't want understand because what you just explains points out, to me, just how overly complex and down right stupid the settings are in that dbx, How about a f^&king stem wall height setting? Instead of a room that raises when a floor is not present on the ceiling height because the foundation needs a floor that is lower than the footing that is set by the relative ceiling height which no longer sits on footing which in turn is set by the depth of the stem wall height relative to the slab which really isn't there but could be if you want a floor under the footing that is based on the relative height of the stem wall unless you want a floor under your crawl space. Why not just give us a stem wall height and be done with it? Or let the software engineer's design the GUI which is always a bad idea, but at least they understand it...

I always figure it out but what's that number in the build foundation dbx set as minimum stem wall height? Why is it there? What does it represent? What is the 'minimum' stem wall height? Why not just simply the stem wall height? Why am I so dense?

I can get the stem wall to be 18" tall if I add the sill plate (WTF?) to get 19 1/2" and the room dbx shows 18" from the bottom of the joists to a spot that looks like it must be 1 1/2" above the floor? ...as the ceiling height? Where is that spot 1 1/2" above the 'floor of the basement? What does it represent?

Thanks Chop...what about setting in the build foundation dbx? What's with the 5"? Where does that come from and why can't I just simply set the stem wall height in that dbx? My floor shows the floor at -25 5/8"? Wonder why? Do you ignore the build foundation dbx and set stuff in the room dbx?

Oh yeah then there's this dbx. Shouldn't there be a stem wall height of 18" in this dbx somewhere? The stem wall is 19 3/8" ? Just cannot grasp the paradigm.....

Can not understand the relationship between what I type in the data fields and what appears in the actual stem wall height. In this plan there's an additional (or lessor) 5 inches and I have no idea how one would know this information. Is it right in front of me? And why can't I simply type in a stem wall height? Thanks very much and apologies for the frustration. stem wall plan.plan