mtldesigns

This is a weird one. I loaded two "Belltown 1-Light Mini Pendant" lights in my model (these are in the Wayfair catalog) with one switch, and it changes the the switch to a 4 way. ??? I then loaded another plan just to see, and I put just one of these pendant lights in the model, with one switch and when connected, it turned to a 3 way. I tried 6 other pendant lights from the same catalog, with one switch, and sure enough they all turned to 3 ways. Other pendants from the core or bonus catalogs work as planned. I guess I never paid attention to this before, since most of the time it is a 3-way situation.. a bug in the catalog maybe? Anyone else duplicating this? BTW I know how to override (unchecking option to auto change type) but thought it was crazy to mention..

I typically just put a ceiling a plane (zero pitch) in a room that I need a different height.. esp when there is a room above. Just did one for an example below...

I get the same message that dhurt gets and I mentioned this issue a month or so ago, and I am on a stand alone. If I open a new template going thru chiefs pull down menu and pick ANY temp-plate, even the ones out of the box I get exactly same thing. It opens a temp-plate that has nothing attached. No wall defs, no dim sets, nothing. But if I go to my C drive, (see below for path), and pick a template and open it that way, it loads correctly. My preference settings are right and have always worked before, so to me this means a bug. I was thinking it might be linked to a Windows 10 upgrade about the same time. Because I have other issues too, like most of my catalog parts are black and white in the preview browser whereas they always showed a material type before. And all of my background views rendered purple.

attach a picture Mark of the actual wall, not the wall specification dbx

Any Detroit Tiger fan is a fan of mine, but what your wanting to do will take a lot of trial and error.... if its even possible. Its all about the plane. Once you get the plane correct, I think you can then convert to a molded poly. Do you have access to Autocad? Might be able to make a rectangle polygon on the correct plane, then bring it over to CA and covert. IDK..

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IN THE PLAN VIEW?

Have you tried to extending the roof plane to the attic wall. Do this by being in your first floor plan, and turning on the Reference Floor Display (F9), showing the walls above. This should allow you to snap the roof plane to the attic wall. Shouldn't have to tweak

I missed all this today? Still wonder why I get timed out of the forum..? Anyways, all great stuff here, with Chops method, by using the air gap for the soffit, it gave me the exposed rafters. However I still needed the fascia, but like K bird noted, the rafters aren't painted. I set all the fascia thicknesses to 7 1/4", then unchecked the Gable and Eave fascia and left Eave Sub checked. This gave me the tail at the right thickness. This still showed the OSB of the sub-roofing material, so I covered that with a thin shadow board (1/16 x 1-1/2") to cover the OSB and the gap that was on the gabled end. Finished off with frieze board with a vertical offset..(because with a soffit roof blocking is not automatic. Is it perfect, nope, but it gets me going in the right direction. Still has that weird birds mouth cut like what chop showed on 18 and a little "point" sticking out there on the gable end.

R U SERIOUS? That's exactly what I've been trying to do. I noticed that when I had soffit's in, it did the cut... Never would have thought insulation air gap can be used as a invisible plane. That's thinking outside the box. Thanks for helping with this frustration of mine. I will hit it tomorrow Stay warm Chop!

Hey Eric, Chop.. and Charles. YES, I am back on this, after I updated all the planes this AM. Had a review with builder, and he has informed me that he was not wanting rafter tails after all, but exposed rafters. Almost the same thing, but not to Chief. Yes, Chief will give you exposed rafters, but not at a different size than the main rafter. In this case, my roof rafters are 2 x 10's, but the exposed rafter is to be a 2" x 6" with a vertical block. I created a little test model, because I didn't want to mess with main project model anymore. On this test, the only way I can get this to work is two different planes of the same pitch, butted up to each other (can't join) and it is ugly on the shingle side (see below). I also tried making a custom rafter tail, but can not scale it to be a 6" (5.5") piece of lumber. Any other ideas, or thoughts... ugh! Any other training vids besides the ones via CA?

Never mind... the Y was in the positive. Geez! Thanks!!!

Eric, I tried that too, but it won't let me set a negative Y. Did you get it to work?

Working a master suite on a beautiful Saturday... I am trying to put in a recessed outlet (like what you would see behind a flat screen). Chief does not have a model of this, nor could I find a descent one on-line to use. I tried (see below) a niche, 2" deep, and it looks great in the plan view when I offset the fixtures -2", but the camera view is another story. I thought, I will just put in a room divider line (like how we used to have to do on islands), and all that did was open the wall up. Any ideas with all you experts?

Per Eric's suggestion, I tried a ceiling plane for the underside of an exposed roof plane (used with rafter tails mainly), and it worked great (see attached). Figured I'd let all know for future questions on how to do this.

damn genius.. will come in at same pitch too..

That's what I think Eric was mentioning, and I thought the same thing too, two planes, same ptich. I'm going to try a couple of these other options you all mentioned than the one I did, and see how it goes. Maybe need to suggest again to Chief Eric? Thanks all.

Adding the 3/8" thk layer is what I just showed. I will have to work around the sections. Better to do this way than a poly solid.

I put that thickness in the Roof Surface Definition and it looks great... but it does the whole plane, including the attic. I guess that's not really a bad thing???? Still not right though.

We will be putting a 3/8" painted beaded board (same as your T&G) in between the tails, attached to that OSB.

Good evening fellow CA users. Got a nice gig for a Florida house that required rafter tails. That part was easy, but wondering how to put the painted board on the underside? I added thickness via Roof Surface Definition but it creates under whole roof plane. Just watched a couple training vids. too, and nothing noting this part. I checked and unchecked a lot of buttons too on the roof dbx.. so I am thinking its a combination?

Wow... definitely get a lot for $0.02 in Alaska. Thank you ALL.. all great points. A little history. Client bought CA and tried to design his own home over a year ago. When he contacted me, in 16, I cleaned his model up for a flat fee. Everything was wrong, no two rooms had the same floor or ceiling heights, no roof line, walls flipped, etc. I fixed the model and received payment. Because I use a job specific Dropbox folder for every project that I share, I gave him the corrected CA file via DB. I noticed earlier this year, that in the same folder construction docs were created using my model, via another design firm, I thought, ok no problem. I did what I was paid for. Forward to September 17, client contacts me and dramatically wants to change this house. I did start this new model from scratch, starting with new plan. But also had the old model and his new changes to reference. I charged a flat fee, based on sq. footage, and have been pad in full for the services I have rendered. Like I mentioned on my original post, they had many chances and did make many changes on this second go round.... thus making my dollar to sq. ft. ratio decrease ALOT. But a contract is a contract. Now that the project is complete and payment has been made in full, I was asked if more changes could be made. And of course they can, but now the charge will be an hourly rate. This and the fact that another group finished my previous design, is what threw up the flag. Not to mention, its proprietary. Just because I buy a custom Chevy Silverado, doesn't mean GM has to give me the plans. Oops.. sorry about the winded note... I couldn't stop typing. Because they are descent people, and always paid on time and in full. I am going to give them two options. A stripped down model at no cost or a adder and a document signing off my ownership. To me that seams very fair, and it puts it in their court. thanks again gents...

Glad you asked this question JLC... my builder wants to make this SOP now on all his houses. Here is another picture. I will find Johnny's thread from April to get a better grasp.

I was thinking the same thing Johnny. My initial thought was coming from, if a person bought a plan online, that's one price. But if you wanted DWG's, there's usually a nice adder. There's a reason they charge more for that. Potential lost work, the ownership, etc...

They are the first clients to ever ask for model, so lesson learned on mentioning in a contract. I am thinking of giving them the watered down version. Deleted sections, notes, dims. basically just the model.

Hey CA users. I know there has been many conversations on how and what to charge. BUT what do you charge for "THE" actual model? I have finished this project,(the model, the layout construction package, with all the sections, views and notes attached), and now client wants that model. They do have a Chief license, correct version even (x9). During concept, I had no problem saving a copy for them to play with because it wasn't really detailed, and it kinda gave them a actual say in the design process (Simm's game?). But now that this all is done, and I have many many hours invested, I am thinking I should not share without additional compensation. Am I wrong to think that? No where was it mentioned in our contract and agreed upon price that I would provide these items. I know for a fact, they want to change some things, so to me, if someone else has, they could complete those mods at a discount rate. BTW, they are great clients, but this is business.