HumbleChief

NICE!!!

Hi you guys, I have a simple but perplexing condition I can't seem to resolve. I want the lower wall of a raised room to be partially invisible AND build an attic wall above but the wall is not really on the attic level. Do I need a second floor? Maybe the video will make it a little clearer. invis_wall_1.plan

Nice video Steve and really appreciate your other video as well. You presented some options I hadn't thought of. Quick question about this technique - is there any reason you can't create a new wall type that is just screen for the attic wall? It seems to work OK on a plan I was messing with but curious how it might mix with your custom screen walls. You would still have to create beams and posts but could save a step perhaps? Again, thanks for the video.

+1

Those were interesting vids Mick. I've never sent a plan view as 'current screen' but can see the logic as it saves a little work when cropping. Lots of great nuances in those vids. Thanks for posting those and thanks to Scott for creating them.

Plan views can remember zoom settings. Zoom to the view you like, modify your anno/layer sets to show what you'd like, save as a plan view with remember zoom checked, and send to Layout at the scale you choose.

I wonder how many Chief users and users in general are interested in any kind of Python or Ruby support? And really just that, curious. I dabbled in Ruby and found no real use for it within my work flow and of course others invest countless hours creating uses for same. For me the question is moot but I wonder how deep the interest goes both within the user base and within the halls of Chief?

Hmm...

Unexpected me thinks....

Nice...and yes the tools are there in Chief to produce some nice 2D landscape designs.....

30 Minutes and a lot less detail than would be needed but doable in Chief and if indeed you want a graded fill it's pretty easy to create in another program and import it into Chief. This was an existing apartment model that I added roads and sidewalks to then created a couple plant/tree symbols from Chief's library, copied and pasted like crazy and colored areas in plan view. Again a pretty simple example but another hour in and you're done. May not be EXACTLY what you're looking for but there's no limit to fill colors/shapes etc. What I would really like is to have plant symbols that you could change the fill within, that way you could create your 3D landscape plan and have a 2D representation that was colored/notated to your liking...Best of no need to earn another program - again only if the look will pass you personal muster.

The first example could certainly be done completely in Chief. There would have to be a couple custom filled shapes for the trees, resized and filled with various colors to represent various plantings. The 2D tree and plant shapes included in Chief's library will work perfectly for this. The rest of the shapes are simple filled CAD shapes and if the model is already done in Chief, each road, side walk and building area can be filled to match the example almost exactly. The text notations are of course a no brainer for Chief's tools. Do you already have a model that needs a landscape plan? Perhaps you could post that or send it to me and see what can be done...

Yeah there's a guy named Bob who's really good....

Curious as to why you would use concrete for your walls - at all. You have access to it? What does that mean exactly and I only ask because we all have access to concrete? Do you like the look? Do you like the idea in general? If you like the look then it will be hard to get that look both inside and out with out a third insulating wall type between concrete pours and as you know the insulation values of concrete are low at best and in the North East that has to be factor no? We built a poured in place concrete structure here in San Diego but the insulation needs are very low coastal and high inland where we could not build the same structure because of the high AC needs in the summer. ICF could be a great option but it will look nothing like 'concrete' when your finishes are applied but you will get some decent R values - and get to use concrete. Still curious about the desire to use concrete? And really just that - curious.

Thanks Mick, old dog new tricks and all that stuff but looks likes a good way to organize wall types. I personally have a very difficult time incorporating some of Chief's features in to a work flow I've used for so many years. It's just faster but most of all easier to remember the old tried and true methods - for me.

I've chased those lines for many, many years with Chief. Sometimes they are very easy to resolve with aligning floors, matching materials etc.. Other times nothing helps and I've learned to live with them.

Yeah I just can't find the time or energy to stay that organized. I use stucco about 90%+ of the time here and recreating wall types actually saves me time because I would have no idea where to find the different walls, even though as you say it's easy and probably smart - maybe smarter than I?

My whole list is very basic with 'existing' 'new' interior and exterior basics that I will change per plan instead of cataloging each different wall type for future plans. For example I have a 'New Stucco' wall type with 7/8" stucco exterior and 1/2" drywall interior and 3 1/2" studs. We just did an as built with some narrow siding and true 4" exterior walls with 1" plaster walls. I simply renamed the Stucco wall type to Siding Plaster 4" for that single plan, changed the layers ( takes only 3 - 4 minutes as you know) and it's good to go for that plan, instead of adding an entirely new wall type to my already too long selection of wall types. If I ever need that wall type again I'll recreate it, again, instead of adding to my wall type list. I started to keep all my new wall types as new walls but got way too cluttered way too fast.

Yeah I was once a contractor myself and would have taken that hit all day every day but business relationships are always more complex than the simple view we get on the forum looking from the outside in. I would not fault anyone for working out a compromise even though the facts (as we know them) seem pretty straight forward. I would also be inclined to try and make sure the contractor I worked for never made that same mistake and tried to pass their responsibility off again. The OP has been in business for a long time and will certainly work things out.

Yeah it's always an easy call from here without all the details and leaving something on the table for the next time is always good business. Let us know how you resolve it if it's not too personal.

Here's the disclaimer on the first sheet of plans which looks like it would cover fabricating trusses as being the contractor's responsibility. I am never quite convinced these kinds of disclaimers have any real legal weight but its presence should at least stop any argument one might have if the contractor orders the wrong trusses. "CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS AT THE JOB SITE AND NOTIFY THE DESIGNER OF ANY DIMENSIONAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES BEFORE BEGINNING OR FABRICATING ANY WORK. THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT EACH AND EVERY DETAIL OR CONDITION THAT MAY OCCUR DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE DESIGNER AND OWNER SHALL RELY ON THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTORS FOR THE PROPER INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS, MANUFACTURES RECOMMENDATIONS AND ICC/ESR APPROVALS ETC."

Curious, were the plans issued from the city without corrected gable truss calcs? May not be relevant but I've had to change truss calcs to match roof changes more than once before permits would be issued. Either way you provided the contractor with a correct set of plans and at that point your job is finished. Any material of any kind that gets ordered after the correct plan permits are issued would not, IMO, be your responsibility. I've also had truss companies that will not proceed without a job walk to measure exact as built framing before ordering trusses for manufacture. I also have a disclaimer on the first sheet of my plans but not sure if it specifically covers trusses - but it will after I finish typing this post.

This is a very simple problem to solve, sitting on the outside of the relationship like all of the rest of us are and Richard's advice is the only real way to solve the current misunderstanding and prevent this from happening in the future. Sitting in your shoes however it might require a little more concrete allegiance to your relationship, what you agreed to do, or best of all your agreement/contract and what it specifically states. If your contract (assuming you have one which is another must have item in your business life) doesn't state that you don't do structural stuff then why wouldn't a client try and get you to do it or expect that it's included? If it does, then you simply refer to your agreement and there's no real argument. If your client still insists on you creating those foundation docs then that's another part of a business person's life which is qualifying your clients and then knowing which ones to let go and which ones to keep.

Thanks for your kind attention Jason.

Can't figure this out either. You can always drag the walls down in 3D but I don't know why those walls will not build the siding down to the top of the foundation.