Alaskan_Son

You're welcome. And that name sounds really familiar. I think I have friends or colleagues that might know him, but I don't personally.

Your problem is that the beam is PAINTED the porcelain color (the color has been put over the top of the Fir texture). When using the material painter, make sure you have Blend Colors With Materials (the little paint roller icon) toggled OFF. There are very few circumstances where that setting should be toggled on IMO.

Bottom right...Click "More Reply Options". Then click "Browse" and select your .PLAN file (you MUST make sure the plan is closed first). Should be as easy as that. If the plan file is too big you can either try zipping it, strip it down (do a Save As and delete everything that's unnecessary) or simply post a Dropbox link. If the textures your using aren't from the core library you might need to "Backup Entire Plan" and attach that zipped folder rather than just the plan.

Glad we got that sorted : )

In addition to the formula I posted above, try setting your sub fascia height to... Vertical Structure Height - (Sub Fascia Width x Roof Pitch) Note: Again...make sure to use the fraction for your roof pitch as noted above.

In your normal plan view, switch to your plot plan layer set and simply delete the extra property line polyline. Should be as easy as that. Or if you want to keep it for some reason, just put it on a unique layer and turn that layer off in the layer set you're using for the Plot Plan CAD Detail.

This will only work for a very specific truss design, but if I understand what you're looking for it might work for you. Try this formula for your Raise Off Plate value... (Roof Overhang - Sub Fascia Width - Fascia Width) x Roof Pitch Note: Make sure and use the fraction for your roof pitch and not just the top number or the angle. In other words, 6/12 would be .50, 8/12 would be .667, 12/12 would be 1.00, etc.

I think you still must be misunderstanding. How about you post a plan where you think the vertical structure definition doesn't match my description and I'll make you a quick video clarifying? I think what you might be missing is that once you check "Trusses", the vertical structure depth in the Build Roof dbx no longer applies as it is still attached to the Roof Structure settings. As I said, once you check "Trusses" those structure numbers are then controlled by the Framing Defaults. If you want to get the correct vertical structure depth for your truss roof you'll have to open the actual roof planes or Edit All Roof Planes.

I think you're just not understanding. It's crystal clear to me...I guess I'm just not explaining it very well. Take a cross section of your roof and measure the rafter or truss top cord PERFECTLY VERTICALLY. This is the Vertical Structure Depth. The reason it changes when you change your pitch should be apparent. The vertical measurement will increase as the pitch increases. A 9-1/4" rafter will have a vertical structure depth of 9-1/4" at a zero pitch. At a 12/12 pitch, that vertical structure depth would increase to around 13-1/16".

I'm not sure whether you're taking crazy pills or not, but I think you are definitely trying to oversimplify something that's really pretty complex. How is Chief supposed to know how you want those "A-frame" trusses built? Like I said, a person could build those a ton of different ways even using the same pitch and overhang. The truss just might require a seat cut on the top cord, a pitch cut onto the bottom cord, an added vertical member out at the end, etc. Regarding the vertical structure depth, that's simply the vertical measurement (measured along the z-axis) of whatever you have in your Roof Structure Definition dbx, or in the case of trusses...whatever you have the top cord set to.

I think this is actually a bug that needs to be reported and corrected. The sill plate will center itself beneath the main layer so long as the foundation is anywhere beneath that main layer. If you move your foundation so that its just inside that main layer you'll see that the sill plate re-positions itself so that its aligned with the exterior of the foundation wall (as you would expect to see it). I see no good reason why it should behave like it does. We should really have a setting that controls the sill plate location but if anything it should probably default to align with the outside of the foundation main layer. As it is now, I think maybe the best thing to do is just manually re-position them where necessary.

Here's what you should really do... Post the plan. Then one of us can take a look at it and give you a much better and more accurate answer.

There's really nothing secret about the birdsmouth value. It just the dimensions of the notch in the rafter. By default Chief gives it a notch with a seat cut the width of the exterior wall. So, for the sake of easy explanation...If you had a 12" wide exterior wall, the Raise Off Plate/Birdsmouth numbers for a 2/12 pitch would be -2. For a 3/12 pitch it would be -3, for a 4/12 pitch it would be -4 and so on. When you check "Trusses (no Birdsmouth)" the structure defaults then come from your Framing Defaults>Trusses>Top cord. By default, the bottom of that top cord will rest exactly at the outside corner of your exterior wall...or with a Raise Off Plate value of 0". The problem with using a formula to figure out that raise off plate value is that it depends entirely on how you want your truss constructed. Using the exact same roof pitch and the exact same overhang I can get a cantilevered truss with basically an infinite number of raise off plate values...including a limited number of negative values.

You can do as Joe suggested but I personally think there's no problem using the library. Just temporarily switch your Current CAD Layer or Annotation Set when you're placing the blocks. It just takes a matter of seconds. There is also a 3rd option...You could use a separate warehouse plan specifically for all those details and just copy and paste to and from that. And you could also consider using simple text macros for many of those text blocks.

Yep. This is what I do on a pretty regular basis as well. If I start to suspect I've taken too long I copy the whole text before continuing...just in case.

Jerry, If you're not familiar with it, we have a tool called Plan Footprint that many people use to create plot plans. When done that way, the plot plan would be in the Project Browser>CAD Details as it is in this case and not just controlled via layer sets and layer settings. Maybe search Plan Footprint in the Help files to get a quick primer on how it works (unless of course you already know and it just slipped your mind).

I think your problem is that the property line is in a different location in your plot plan than it is in the main plan. You either moved the building in your plot plan or moved the property line in your main plan. Fix that to either align them or delete one of them and you should be good.

I think measuring in elevation is the only reliable way to do what you're looking for. I'm not sure there's any perfect formula because the roof can be built in any number of configurations, with different structure settings, with different baselines, with different heights, and most importantly those numbers don't always have any connection at all to the plate height or the wall. In other words, there are not enough constants and there are too many variables to create a workable formula or table.And just to clarify, you stated earlier that what you were doing involved trial and error so I assumed you hadn't been simply taking a measurement. You can very quickly get an EXACT measurement though. No trial and error necessary.

I'm not sure I'm following why this has to be so complicated. Have you tried simply taking a cross section view and just measuring the distance between the top of your plate and the bottom of your sub fascia? That should Be the number you need right?

If I am understanding correctly, it sounds like what you're after is maintaining page sequence between multiple layouts...Layout #1 has pages 1-60, Layout #2 has pages 61-100, etc. If this is correct, I would be curious as to why you're using separate layouts in the first place. Is there some reason you can't just include it all in a single layout? If my assumption is incorrect, can you perhaps clarify what you're trying to do? Maybe Glenn's guess is correct?

Okay. I just didn't read anything in Glenn's post suggesting that the point be included within the block. And I was actually envisioning a situation similar to what Rashid brought up where the desired insertion point is not associated with any of the lines in the block therefore you have nothing to snap to. You are correct that place point has some benefits, but you can use a point marker (or any other snappable item for that matter) for the same thing without including it in the block if you either place it after the the block is created or deselect it before reblocking, and it has the added benefit of easier relocation if the desired insertion point isn't related to any particular point within the block. To be clear about one thing... When you use Place Point like in Chief's video, the only unique thing that's happening is that the temporary point marker isn't being selected and included in the block (because its not possible)...nothing more than that. That's the reason you can still snap to it. Deselect the point marker before blocking (or just don't select it in the first place) and you have the exact same thing.

Thanks for taking the time to make a video Glenn. For all intents and purposes, entering coordinates isn't exactly the same thing as being able to drag a point marker around and snap it to things (or things to it). Anyway, still appreciate you taking the time. One quick note though for anyone who doesn't realize it. You don't need to actually add anything at all to your block to change the insertion point. All you have to do is click on any location where you want the insertion point to be. It's really that easy. Of course it helps if you have something to work with to originally set the point, but the insertion point can really be anywhere at all...even in blank space.

If you were to post the plan we could stop guessing and you'd probably have an answer within minutes.

In addition to Perry's suggestion, you can also consider using a text box with an arrow along with the blank line type...or, you could also manually move the automatically created labels over into your table. I'm not a macro master so there might be other macro methods as well but those are a couple that come to mind. Room finish shedule is probably a better idea though.

I fully understand how to use templates and do use them from time to time. I just choose not to. I really don't find it all that difficult or time consuming to start from scratch for much of what I do. Contrary to what some of you dedicated full house plan guys think, there are a lot of benefits to not using a template. Anyway Larry, you are the one having an issue and I was just suggesting that perhaps you need to relink individual views rather than the entire layout. It was just a thought.