Ridge_Runner

Chris, would you mind posting the OP plan? I would like to look at your method for the stucco channel to polysolid groove. Nice design, BTW.

Mike

Thanks, Rod. I certainly understand about "working late a lot lately."

Mike

Thanks, Perry. I just didn't follow his comments about, "Myself, the engineer, and the GC just finished working out the additional shear panels required to fix the issues his method created."

Mike

The model I posted does have the valley plates above the roof sheathing.  If a person wanted to go that far you could model the sheathing and even provide subtractions for cutaways or whatever........

 

Edit:

 

I recently had a project where the 2D plans where very clear that the roof sheathing was to continue under the overbuilt section in order to provide the required shear the engineer requested.  I even spoke with the framer and explained why it needed to be done this way.

 

He said something about how he already knew how to do this as I was leaving.  Myself, the engineer, and the GC just finished working out the additional shear panels required to fix the issues his method created.

Rod, I must be a little dense today. I'm not sure I follow you on your above comment. Are you saying you "left" the existing sheathing and overlaid the 2x valley on top of the existing, or that you "removed" the existing sheathing and placed the 2x valley directly on top of the rafters. We always leave the existing sheathing. I'm sure it is just me but I didn't follow your comment.

Thanks, Mike

Joe, I would love to see screenshots or something of your process. Perhaps you have a good system I dont know about.

 

Personally - I really have no idea how people design thru 3D modeling in CA and end up with well thought out projects, in a reasonable amount of time.  I feel I could model a home with no concept work, but it wouldn't come out like a project where I took the added step of 2D drawings.  I'd even suggest the 2D concept workflow can be faster than trying to design-3d-model.

 

(edit)

I changed my example to a residential project, since that is mostly what you guys are taking about here.  So below is an example where I could produce this for a client in 1-3 hrs to make sure (a) the floor plan would generally meet the clients need, and ( elevation concept was in line with the motif/style the client wanted, and © rough shot estimates could be made for the estimated budget.

 

What can you do in 1-3 hrs in CA to give such a rough overview of a project in concept stage?

Johnny, I really like your presentation views/sections, and I understand the frustrations of not always getting the 3D model to do what I want it to do (at least in My timeframe). And, your sections are impressive for 1-3 hrs. of work. But when I do a project with CA, I have the 2D done for me by the software. Not always perfect but a good place to jump into and embellish as needed. Where a 3D package shines, at least for me, is understanding (and presenting to the client) what their spaces will look before the first nail is driven. Many clients, as we all know, just can't visualize the space and how it all works together. My other preference for 3D is driven by the roofs. If you have a simple hip or gable roof system there are typically no problems. But when the roofs are cut-up, with sometimes different pitches/plate heights, it is so much easier to pull an overview, spin it around, and look for the problem areas. Many can draw roofs in 2D elevations and they may work. But can you actually build it?

Again, your work is impressive, especially from an artistic perspective. Mike

Sherry, I always "think" better with a pencil and sketch pad close by. I can't tell you how many times I resort to those (with a Construction Master IV handy) to solve the "structure tab."   Computers are great, but what are we going to do when the power goes off?

Mike

I use 3D for everything I possibly can. I use polysolids on most every plan. And you are right, Joe, the 3D helps with the spacial thinking. However, CA still needs work in cross sections. I have to clean up almost every section I take. Some of it is because I am picky about my sections; there is a way I want them to look and I haven't found an out-of-the-box solution yet. I use several sections in my plans to convey the roof, foundation and framing, especially where there are special conditions or out-of-the-ordinary design conditions. I always have to remove or modify some stray/extra lines in the sections. I will sometimes use cross sections to CAD detail, but not much - too many lines to clean up and it is no longer "live" anyway. I use as many generic details as possible; the others I will draw from scratch with 2D.

Mike

Thanks, Joe; worked great.

Mike

That's the conundrum, Greg. There have been many threads on this subject, with two current ones if you want to follow the discussion. How you describe it is the "bottom up" approach many of us are sooooooo familiar with. But CA, apparently, works "top down," which is counter-productive to the way I think. I don't know if I will ever understand it.

Mike

Thanks, Jon, for this link.   Mike

So here is an alternative:

 

I created a 3D Molding Symbol that can be adjusted for both width and height.  The Symbol contains the framing and the soffit and wall surfaces.  By creating a Room Molding Polyline and setting the linestyle to a short dash it will show in Plan View.  The width can be anything from 6" to 72" and the height can be 8" to 48".

Joe, could you post the plan so I can see your method for creating this type of symbol with its components?

Mike

It seems to me that all of this confusion could be avoided if floor elevations could be made KING. In other words, changing floor elevations would change ceiling heights, but changing ceiling heights could not change floors. You could lower ceilings (which would not change the floor above; it would just create an interstitial space), but you could never raise ceilings beyond the floor above. Foundations could be lowered, but raising them could not affect floor heights. (It used to be this way, where the stem wall could not be reduced beyond the slab plus ceiling height.) Also, lower floors should not be able to affect higher floors. Raise a floor with a floor above, and the ceiling gets lower; if you want a higher ceiling you'd need to explicitly raise the floor elevation above and the DBX would merely INFORM you what the new ceiling height is.

 

This would work for me.

I have been watching this thread with interest since it started. I wanted to gain more info before I opened my mouth and inserted my foot. I am not what some would consider a "power user" but I have used CA since version '97 and have done some complicated structures with it. There is much good discussion here, but NO answer. I understand this is a complicated problem/issue that some have figured out and many, apparently, have not. I am one that has not. I quoted Richard because his comments seem to resonate with the way I think and approach a design/structure. I understand Glenn's comments. However, I seldom have a client who wants me to raise the roof after I have come up with a design concept. I almost always have clients that want me to raise the ceiling height, or lower it, while leaving the floor system alone. With the ceiling/roof in control this almost always leads me to problems with the floor structure. I also agree that CA should refer to "top plate height" vs. the ambiguous baseline; that is what the framers understand. I wouldn't go to a jobsite and tell the framer I need the baseline adjusted - they would laugh me off the site. I don't want to calculate a new baseline every time I have to change roof pitch or go with a different size rafter because the birdsmouth cut is now different. In essence, floors should be King and everything else follow them - most other things I know how to adjust. I appreciate all of the many improvements CA has made to this software/design tool- they are to be commended and I am a fan. But this is at the very basic level of how a design program works. I don't think from the top down; I think like I build - from the bottom up.

Mike

40 years ago I could develop the concept, draw it on paper with pencils (yes we used those in the "stone age), usually had few, if any, changes, and went to the blueprint machine to print. Anyone remember those? It was a more simple time. I love the tools we have today, but I wonder if the tail is wagging the dog?

Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

Mike

Wellll...there's more to it than that.

 

We do more than just houses, plus we don't have strict codes around here.  So we don't have to get things approved by engineers, etc...

 

On average we do 50 pole buildings per year, plus there's a lot of simple garages and remodels.  They're not all full blown new houses or extensive remodels.

 

And we don't bill out for our drafting services.  We make up for it in the material we sell.  We call it a "service we provide for homeowners and contractors".

 

Not all 400 of those plans went to Final either...

Sure glad you cleared that up, a.k.a. jonathank. I was just about ready to respond to you personally to get some training on how to use Chief! I am certainly not the fastest guy out here, but you had me concerned about my ability to use this program!

Mike

edit: I'm glad you have that kind of business available and needed to hire more help; that is what a good business model is supposed to look like in action.

Nice, Yusuf. These images have post work done in Photoshop or similar editing software, right? I can't get Chief to give me the clarity you show with the nice soft touch in the house, but I am also not an expert in the rendering department.

Mike

I was busy last year and have been busy so far this year. It has slowed down a bit with contractors finishing up what they started earlier (unlike you guys in CA, we were inundated this spring - even crops were late getting planted - and that's a good thing). Remodels are starting to show up; mostly people not in a real hurry and don't know if they want to remodel or build new. Probably like many of you, 2+ years ago was a disaster. Plenty of time to learn more about Chief.

Mike

Thanks Michael for the Link.  I will try it when I have time unless you want to do a vid to explain how to use it.

 

It amazes me how some of you guys find these neat web sites that have all this information.

I'll second that! I tried the site for one of the projects I am working on. Looked fairly accurate from a visual standpoint - no hard elevations taken on this project - not needed. I just added the waypoints in the Map section and they worked easily. I did note that if you move them (switching from Map to Satellite view) they do update but create a new way point in the sidebar list with a "moved" extension rather than the original "added" extension; they also do not delete the old ones. Not sure how that will export yet. Thanks again, Michael.

Mike

Thanks, Jim; nice door.

Mike

Thanks, Charlie; will try that.

Mike

Charlie, I've seen some of your pics in other threads. I like this presentation style. What are your camera settings to get this?

Mike

Joe is right about the Chief approach he gives. Some call these "inset decks" but you can't do that with Chief. BTW, they are a pain to get right so they don't leak and/or fill with debris (leaves and sticks especially). I have done some of these and always try and make the client aware of what "might" happen if they don't keep them clean or live in snow country. The internet is filled with those who have built many and discourage anyone from building them. My opinion - and that's what it's worth.

Mike

(edit) - What I mean is you can't call it a "deck" as a room definition in Chief. You can certainly create it in Chief with a little effort.

Create a new Layerset and lock all layers except the ones you want to edit; makes it easy to switch back and forth that way.

Mike

I usually just grab the north arrow and spin it and watch the sun angle in plan to get the quick sun angle I want for rendered views. I read in another post (I think a comment from one of the Chief guys) about turning off "use enhanced lighting" in render preferences; that was supposed to make the camera results look like what we used to get in Chief. Tried that, but that gives some weird results.

Mike

Thanks.

Glenn, was that the old forum? I did a search on this one and could not find it.

Mike