Joe_Carrick

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.

You deed to empty the deleted folder

That would be a "Balcony", not a "Deck" which can not be above any other rooms. It must be on a Floor below the Attic. So you need to have an actual Floor at that level and extend walls around it - even if they are just half walls or railing walls.

Richard, Just use a Foundations Schedule Clear as MUD.

Welcome to Larry's world. I virtually never use that unless I have a "Slab on Grade" situation without a basement.

You would not want to bet on that - you would lose. I can do the engineering calculations using Ruby macros in Chief. However, I would not worry about a "non-printing" layer since I control all of that with Annosets & Layersets

Shane, Right Click on Taskbar Icon - then click on a recent plan file - "Assertion Failure"

Still get it here. I downloaded again and the problem is still there.

Alan, 1. Suppress the "Main Title" and "Column Headings" by unchecking the checkboxes. Use a separate Rich Text Box for the Title and Column Headings. 2. Use a separate Text Box for the "Manually entered Sheet Index (your ACAD dwgs). Personally, I have everything in Chief - it really shouldn't be that difficult to transfer all the ACAD stuff into Chief. Then you wouldn't have to mess with a manual Sheet Schedule.

I just installed X7.3 and found that if I try to open a recent plan by right clicking on the X7 Icon on the Taskbar or Start Menu. I get an "Assertion Failed" error. I reported this to Support and they confirmed it on their end. You can still open recent file from within Chief - but not from the Taskbar or Start Menu icons. You can open Chief by just left-clicking on those icons. IAE, CA development is working on it.

Perry, I agree with you but OTOH with a Schedule you have to save the notes to the Library and catalog them - otherwise you are always re-entering on every project. I'm trying to figure out a way to copy a set of notes as a whole, but the only way I can think of doing that is to have each "note" in a CAD Detail with the Note Schedule(s).

No, I think you need to do it after mulling.

If you make it Exterior Fixture it can be resized in all directions independently.

I'm not sure, but you might need to select/tab to each of the components and set the "Sill" there. Editing Mulled Units is "tricky".

Why are you exporting DWG? What are you using that for? I'm just curious.

It is not a good idea to Copy/Paste Schedules - unless you delete the original. Otherwise you can get double labels in the Plan.

Here are a couple of concepts for "Plan Notes": A. Use a "Plant Schedule" as discussed in some other threads. 1. Pros a. It's pretty easy to implement b. I can be done on a (per floor) or (all floor) basis c. Notes can be edited easily creating new notes 2. Cons: a. You can't have a separate Plant Schedule b. You can't have multi-line or word-wrapped notes. B. CA provides a "Note Schedule" 1. Pros a. It's pretty easy to implement b. I can be done on a (per floor) or (all floor) basis c. Notes can be edited easily creating new notes 2. Cons: a. CA needs to implement multi-line and/or word-wrap capability b. Requires a new Object Type (Note) in Chief C. Use external text files 1. Pros a. Simple to use Text Editors b. multi-line and/or word-wrapped notes are easy 2. Cons a. Must use some method of transferring the text to the Plan b. Coordination with the Plan is manual. D. Special Text Object with 2 parts: Number-Displayed and Note-Undisplayed 1. Pros a. Contained totally in Chief b. Easy to Coordinate with Plan c. Multi-Line and or Word-Wrap can be done using a macro to format the Notes. 2. Cons a. Requires a new Object Type in Chief b. The 2 parts of the Object would need to have attributes available. c. Text macro would be needed to format and display the notes. IMO, Concept "B" would be the best solution. Unless and until CA provides that, Concept "A" is still the best.

Do you have "Line Weights" turned ON? There is a Toggle Icon on the "Modes Toolbar". There's also an item in the "View Menu"