Alaskan_Son

I don’t think I ever made a video about that. It was likely just some tips I typed up in a forum post, and more likely than not, I was suggesting a truss base and using trusses that basically resulted in nothing more than the top chords (rafters). Just because Chief is calling it a truss doesn’t mean it can’t be a rafter. Whatever gets it done right!?

You bet.

I haven’t opened your plan, but based on your wording it sounds like it’s possible you’re being a little reckless with your settings trying to find the right combination. See if this clarified things for you at all... 1. You have to have auto regenerate deck framing toggled ON or else your framing will not adjust once you make any changes. 2. You have to divide the different areas up into different “rooms” using some sort of wall (DO NOT check No Room Definition on these walls) if you want to have automatically generated planking running in different directions over different areas. 3. If you’ve been toggling settings willy nilly to try and get your desired results then you should probably check ALL your deck rooms one at a time to make sure the rotation is set appropriately, that auto regenerate is toggled on and that auto planking rotation is toggled off (just to be safe). I am away from my computer, but if I recall correctly, this could very well result in two adjacent decks having the exact same angle setting due to the shape of those rooms. 4. Make sure both your framing layers are in the Floor Structure layers and that nothing is in the Room Finish layers.

Not sure about the plan you’re referencing because I haven’t seen it, but what you’ve described is an issue that’s been around for a little while and is usually triggered by having auto framing for the roofs toggled off and Auto Rebuild roofs toggled on. It stops happening if you toggle one or the other. Super annoying though for sure.

Just a side note here, but if you use trusses, you can simply make them all Reduced Gable trusses and then manually drag an automatically generated lookout right over the top of all of them.

Is there something in the water? It seems like we’re seeing examples of people using those gable into gable drainage hazards about once a week this days.

It could be handled with a custom font, but it seems like just manfully placing the labels would be just about as easy. Just make a couple new CAD blocks with those labels and place them in your library. In fact, you don't even need to turn the arrow off, just place a text box over the top of the existing up/down text. Just give it a solid fill (background color) and make sure it gets placed into a higher drawing group.

Why do you recommend that David? flatten pad is very commonly the exactly right thing to do. The biggest things to understand with terrains are these... 1. Use the proper tools. Define your terrain with the elevation data tools (points, lines, splines, regions, and terrain breaks). Only use the modifier tools after the underlying terrain has been properly defined. 2. Give Chief enough information to work with (it needs at least 2 pieces of elevation data and perhaps much more depending on the desired contours). 3. Avoid giving Chief too much information. It just starts to get confusing, difficult to keep track of, and slows down the terrain generation. 4. And most importantly (and as was already stated above), don't give Chief conflicting data. Do not overlap elevation lines, don't leave any lines or points inside an elevation region, and don't place conflicting data right next to each other--give it a little space.

I definitely agree with Joey. Yes, it would help drain water at least a little, but not much at all, and it results in 2 more problem valleys where stuff can build up and cause problems (not to mention a nightmare for the roofer to detail properly). It actually is a lot different than a normal valley by the way because normal valleys have one pitch directing water onto another perpendicular pitch whereas your example has one pitch directing water onto another parallel pitch. Truth is that it has no benefit whatsoever in that scenario. The only time I would build that particular type of cricket or saddle would be behind another obstruction (to direct the flow of water around it).

It seems like you fellas might be missing the point here. Those library objects ARE NOT framing objects and so they SHOULD NOT be included in the framing schedule. If you want non-framing objects to be included in the framing schedule (which is really what you're asking for) then I think that's a different suggestion entirely. If you want those beams to be included in your framing schedule properly and per Chief's current design, then you should be doing yourselves a favor and using a framing object and not a symbol from the library. If the current framing tools can't give you what you need then I would suggest that you ask Chief to add the required framing type. Point is that those symbols aren't set up to work like you're requesting and never have been. In fact, there is no such thing as a framing symbol and so your desired functionality would require a whole new symbol category along with all sorts of other supporting changes to help control how the object functions and how it is to report to the schedule. This is a case where I think tech support nicely added your request to the pile, but I think they probably should have just told you you're expecting something that simply doesn't work that way.

Sounds like perhaps you're not too familial with CAD/CAM/BIM software. Softplan with all modules---> $3,585 Vectorworks Architect---> $3,045 Revit---> $2,250 per year AutoCAD Architectural---> $1,260 per year or $4,950 ArchiCAD---> Not positive, but $5,000+ last I checked (I think it was actually closer to $8,000 but I'm not sure) and could cost quite a bit more with some of the various add-ons All Plan and other full featured CAM/BIM software can easily cost $12,000+ ...and some CAM software packages such as CATIA can easily cost $50,000 or more--in fact, the yearly maintenance fee alone can cost twice as much as Chief If you ask me, Chief Architect Premier is a bargain.

Away from my computer so I can’t test this, but here’s a random idea... Use a very very small road, driveway, sidewalk, fence, or some other object that follows the terrain and just draw it around the perimeter of your house . Place it onto a unique layer and you should get a semi-automated terrain surface line.

Yep. This is a very good way to do it. Only time it really kinda sucks is at outside corners. I wish Chief would figure out a way to fix that issue.

I haven't sent anything. It's not something I care enough about right now. As you mentioned, I have very rarely used the walk-through tool. I oftentimes find good reasons to familiarize myself with the tools though for various reasons including training/support services. This issue of pausing a camera during a walk-through has come up a grand total of 1 times in my experience though and never for my own purposes, so on my personal list, I would put it somewhere between the need for a "Randomly Delete Framing Without Asking" tool and a "Gummy Worm Wizard" tool. I could see myself having fun with one of those tools. On the other hand, I guess I could maybe report the disobedient behavior as it could be part of another bigger issue with the software that might affect other dialog boxes or behaviors.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what the extra plates are even for. Can you clarify, or illustrate?

Just group select the desired foundation walls and change the sill plate setting.

Lee, I believe the problem you are seeing was a bug in X9 that has been fixed in X10.

Yes, except with this example, the point would be moot. These are not framing objects.

The material is irrelevant. It's not a framing object. In other words, just because you paint a couch with a framing material doesn't mean it would/should show up in the framing schedule.

Those beams aren't framing objects so they're not going to show in the framing schedule. If you want an I-Beam that shows up in the framing schedule, just draw an actual joist or beam, change it's Type to Steel-I and then change the material.

...or polyline solids.

Agreed. Very nice indeed.

Kinda. I was really just trying to offer a method for keeping track of/managing those masks. Make them bright red and maybe give them a super heavy line weight in a special "SHOW MASKS" layer set. Otherwise, they can be a little difficult to remember and may end up screwing up your drawing if you forget they're there after you make certain changes.

Steve, to test on your own without printing, do this... Place the %scale% macro somewhere in your view and zoom in/out until you get it to say 1/4 in = 1 ft What you see on your screen at this zoom setting is exactly what you should see if you print to scale. In other words, your screen will be reporting the actual scale as you see it on your screen. Take a ruler to your screen and you should see what I mean.

Quick tip for those unaware... Instead of repeatedly deleting those errant lines, just mask them with a CAD mask...Fill set to background color and line style set to be controlled by layer. Set the layer line style to red and the invisible line style. For added lines, just draw those in with CAD rather then editing the plot lines. This way when you update your view you don't have to keep fixing the same stuff. If you want to quickly check your plan for mask locations, just temporarily change the line style to normal and there they all are, bright red (or whatever color you want).