Alaskan_Son

Agreed...except that in this particular instance I'm not even sure the solutions we have should be considered "Clever Tricks". Putting a camera outside a deepened terrain skirt just seems like using the right tool for the job... and I don't even think using a CAD mask is a workaround. I think if we were given the exact same polyline tools we have now under the heading "Layout mask" (or some other appropriate term) that some people would think we had a cool new tool. As with many things its just the way you look at it.

Why don't you try another symbol first. I still can't figure out for the life of me why you are having such a hard time in the first place. Maybe you just picked a bad symbol to start with...or maybe a major detail is getting miscommunicated in translation. Importing SKP files shouldn't be too hard to do. As long as you are using Chief Architect version X7 and are actually importing SKP files, and are getting them from the 3D warehouse there shouldn't be a whole lot of variables. I've had minor issues in the past with textures and sizing, but never anything like what you've described.

All jokes aside, there has to be some sort of balance. If we're given independent controls for every little thing we think of, Chief could become a bloated monstrosity pretty quickly.

Mmm hmmm. I know that's right!

What language do you speak fluently? Maybe there's another user that can speak your language and may be of better assistance. The troubles you're having shouldn't be so difficult to sort through and I can't help but think a big part of the problem is the language barrier.

Do a final view with shadows first.

It would be best if you could attach the plan, but the first thing that comes to mind would be to lower the roof pitch.

I still do all my take-offs old school. Pen and a piece of paper.

I don't think I would go that far, its not like the program is doing anything wrong...Which direction the material should be is totally subjective. It would be nice to have independent material control over the 2 different areas though.

I personally don't use material lists, but in messing around with it for a bit, I pretty quickly discovered the following... First, you need to check "Insul" wherever you want insulation, NOT on a unique insulation layer. In other words, its your 5-1/2" stud layer that gets insulated so that's where the check should go. Secondly, the insulation won't show up in the material list till you have actually created an enclosed building envelope (i.e. you need to create an enclosed room).

Not sure whats causing you so much trouble but here's a crappy video if it helps... http://screencast.com/t/9H3n198n

There are a number of ways to get what you're looking for but what comes to mind first is to just create 2 separate roof planes. Hmmm...on second thought I guess it would need 3 separate roof planes. Maybe that's not a very good idea. Maybe a roof/ceiling plane, p-solid, or slab about 1/8" thick placed just below the soffit would be a better option. You should probably post this in the suggestion forum. I think its a good one.

You betcha

Be careful not to mix up ventilation requirements with make-up air requirements. 2 different things. Makeup air is required to replace air being exhausted to the outside (i.e. for pressure balance). Also should not be confused with relief air or intake air. I'm sure the fans you are referring to Perry, are installed to meet continuous ventilation requirements. They are not for the purpose of makeup air...rather they might cause the NEED for makeup air. You may already understand that, just clarifying for those that may not.

Uncheck "Ceiling Over This Room".

To answer your question more specifically... We've never been called for anything on remodels but any naturally aspirated furnace or boiler around here needs a combustion air vent anyway, so that one is a given, and we install the kitchen makeup air for any hood vents 400cfm or more "voluntarily". To date we haven't done a remodel that ended up tight enough to require anything additional ("Fresh 80s/100s ,gravity dampers, motorized dampers, etc.) so those have so far been reserved for new construction.

Here in Alaska due to our relatively unique climate, fresh air and make-up air are huge. We use those through-the-wall "Fresh 80" and "Fresh 100" vents on a pretty regular basis. We've actually deleted the whole section allowing window vents to be part of the calculation. Those are a bit of a "poor mans" solution though. I personally prefer to use an HRV, to install a makeup air system specifically for the kitchen exhaust and then to take worst case negative pressure readings before installing any additional vents. We try to get this stuff right regardless of whether inspectors catch it or not simply for indoor air quality, to reduce possibilities of rot and mold caused by condensation, and to meet code requirements for health reasons. Around here, I don't think I've had a building safety inspector call it out though. It's always been voluntary on our part. The inspectors that do call it out are energy raters which to date have rally been voluntary inspections that one could choose to heed or ignore.

I don't have an answer for you, but for clarification, are you talking about generic prescriptive calcs or using the actual fixtures and devices?

Ya, I realized that when I was messing around with it myslef. I was just trying to point out that its still buggy. Whether that little flat spot is a result of a limitation or not, point is that there needs to be a little flat spot. As soon as any shape comes to a peak...KABLAM!!! louvers disappear.

Feels buggy to me as well. Every shape will work right up until your shape comes to a point at the top. I think Joe is "cheating" by leaving a small flat spot at the top.

I think you supplied the answer in your own 2nd post...the code has simply become more stringent. Based on the 2003 IRC (cited in your attachment) you could go as close as 3ft. The 2012...not so much.

Not sure if you guys are really reading all the posts or not, but as Robert pointed out above, by very definition (section R202), Fire Separation Distance is measured to the LOT LINE and not to the neighboring structure (as I was also presuming). I assume the intent is to allow neigboring lots full and complete use of their respective lots to account for any and all future structures and usage without any regard for existing structures and usage. Makes sense to me.

Thank you. You are correct sir.

Not saying you're wrong, but where in the code do you get that idea from? As I understand it, the intent of the code is structure separation, not lot line setback.

The 2012 IRC is definitely more restrictive. http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/2012/icod_irc_2012_3_par041.htm