Joe_Carrick

Bumped again

No telling, but it probably has to do with Layers (CAD Blocks and the underlying lines, fill, etc.)

Shane, There is so much wrong with those symbols. The CAD Blocks and underlying objects are on the wrong layers for example. I don't know who made them but the CAD Block is on the "Roof Layer" which makes no sense.

Larry, Select counter top open and select line style front group move to front ok

Window Symbols don't inset into Walls in Plan View. Other than that, yes you can probably do all of it with pieces - but how reuseable is it?

Post the Plan

Yusuf, Many niches are much more than just a framed opening the full depth of the wall. They sometimes - such as the "Washer Hook-Up" have other items inside them. Sometimes they have domed arches like a couple of my symbols. Most of the time they have a back that is not simply one material. The sides may be sloped, the niche may be only partially recessed, etc. My reason for preferring the Symbol approach is the increased flexibility.

I prefer niche symbols with transparent material regions blocked together. https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/4413-wall-niches-library-revised/?hl=niche

Not only a complete dbx but also attributes that can be accessed to provide the needed information as well as allowing attributes to be modified resulting in modifications to the Plan. OTOH, we should be careful about "Code Compliance" in the software as it would be very possible to overly constrain what could be done. A lot of the IBC is unnecessarily limiting - exceptions are allowed with engineering documentation and backup. There are new products and systems appearing all the time that surpass what the IBC requires.

Kevin, I agree that StruCalc is a good way to go for final engineering and printed calculations. What it doesn't do is take the loads and framing member layout directly from the Chief Plan. If there was a direct export to StruCalc from a Chief Plan and a Import back into the Plan it would be great. What I'm trying to do is simply provide some basic preliminary sizing so the Plan doesn't have to be changed later. If the preliminary sizing is done directly within Chief then there's less chance that the results from detailed analysis like StruCalc or from an Engineer will result in problems.

Big-Rigs on the 10 Freeway - really scary when it blows. I've see a couple go over sideways. I also remember many years ago having my windshield pitted so badly on the 215 just north of San Bernardino that I had to get it replaced at Park City the next day (January) because the snow just stuck and it was impossible to see.

Only a 7.5 or 8 - not a 9.0 But I do see that you are in the special Los Angeles to the Salton Sea (Flat-Lander) wind zone - and most of your projects are 1-2 stories so the weight isn't as much which accounts for lower seismic forces. We don't have the same wind loads down here in San Diego County and winds up in the San Bernardino mountains are lower.

These questions are for everyone..... What psf wind loads do you have to design for in your local? What is your local?

Really Perry? You're practically sitting on top of the San Andreas. I would think seismic would be critical.

Rod, It's really been a long time since I needed to do a lateral analysis for wind. Can you summarize the calculation and where forces need to be applied and/or resisted? My recollection is the total wind load at any given elevation is just the load from everything above that level. Shear at top of walls. Shear at base of walls. Overturning/HoldDown requirements use basically a "Cantilever Moment" calculation.

Interesting difference: Nuance Power PDF removes the "Confidential" watermark. Adobe Acrobat doesn't.

I was able to open it with Nuance Power PDF. HINKLE 2 OF 3 TRUSSES.PDF

Give what a try?

Rod, I am using a macro and I use all 3 criteria (Shear, Bending & Deflection) to determine the sizes. I agree that Deflection is often the critical element - but there are times when Shear or Bending govern. The problems I have right now is that Chief doesn't provide all the information needed so I am limited to uniformly loaded simple span members. I've asked for more intelligent framing members with more complex loading and support conditions. I don't know if CA will ever get to that point but it's what I would need to have. For wind load calculations, we would need to be able to get the total exposed wall and roof (horizontal projection) area of each elevation. This could be done by using the Wall & Roof Labels (each would need to be identified for the specific elevation) and a macro to collect those. When you were working on this we didn't have "Wall Labels" so it would have been almost impossible. I believe it is possible now - but it would still be difficult without additional wall attributes surface_area & centroid_height. Those things could probably be calculated by using Floor Elevation Data extracted from Rooms - but it wouldn't be 100% accurate in all cases. My work is not usually dependent on Wind Loads. Seismic is almost always the governing lateral load for me and of course that requires a very comprehensive vertical load analysis.

I've been working on a way to calculate and display the required sizes of Rafters, Joists and Beams depending on loads, spans and material. The idea is to analyze the Plan Framing Members as they exist and determine what would be required to meet that layout. Chief does not prevent a Plan from being impossible - framing members to small for the spans and loads - so this system would assist in getting a more realistic structural design. There are a couple of different ways to analyze and select a size: 1. Simply find the smallest size that will work with set spacing a. limited to specified structure depth b. increasing width if requred c. increasing both width and depth 2. Decrease the spacing and try the same (a,b,c) a. spacing limited to 12", 16", 24" for rafters and joists. 3. Change the material stress grade and use one of the above. In your opinion, which of the above would be most desirable? Assuming that #1 is the first step and didn't get a satisfactory result, would #2 and/or #3 need to be automatic or would a manual selection of those criteria be acceptable? If none of the above result in sizes that fit within the design then it would require the structural layout to be modified by the user.

Just bumped this so newcomers can find it.

Here's a link to a lot of People Images. https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/1988-people-images-1st-batch/?hl=%2Bpeople+%2Bimages Images take a lot less to process than 3D models. If you put too many actual 3D people in your plan it will get real slow.

It's fixed - new version download is available

Didn't someone recently post how to do this with "Outlookers"?

I would also like a find and replace tool. However, IMO it should be built into all text tools. Currently I just keep NotePad open and whenever I need to edit a large amount of text I copy/paste it into NotePad, make my edits there and copy paste back into my Text Editing dbx. Another feature that would be really nice would be "suggested words" like we have on our cell phones for sending text messages.