GeneDavis

Have you asked your clients, the architects, what they think it's worth?

I had success doing this. Thanks to Glenn down under for the invisible wall as spacer hack. Don't frame a deck until all floor framing elsewhere in the plan is done, and make sure your floor framing is locked and autoframe is turned off. In Defaults>Framing for floors 0 and 1, reset the spec for rim joist to 1-1/2" thickness, select "lumber" for type. Create a new wall type exterior wall. I took Siding-6 and stripped off in and out leaving only the main, changed it to be 1" thickness, deselected framing for the wall type, made material insulation air gap, made wall type air gap, and then drew a wall with it, inside the deck and parallel to the house wall from which the deck will hang, end to end of deck. Then moved the wall tight against the house wall. I then framed the deck, by selecting its room and clicking on the "build deck framing" tool. It builds with lumber rims, same type (pressure treated) and depth as deck joists, and the against-house rim has a 1" space between the house floorframe rim and the deck ledger rim. That is what I want. Half inch sheathing, half inch Dek2Wall spacer. Perfect. BTW, that 1-inch space that is there happens to be the sum of all the exterior wall layers that are on the house wall, in case OOB Siding-6 with its 1/2-inch sheathing and 1/2-inch clapboards layers. The invisible wall's width of 1" has nothing to do with the 1" framing gap. There is one little hook I can't explain. See the pic here. That 1" wall is visible in the 3D perspective framing overview and I don't know what it is. In the view I show, I used the delete surface tool to lose the floorframe sheating so you can see the joists and rim.

Use grid and snaps in layout? Adjust grid size as needed in defaults.

I have made a "Suggestion" for this, and it's not been achieved yet. For those of us that include deck framing in con docs, it's needed. Editing it as we have it is tedious.

How? I tried just typing it in, but it's not a hyperlink.

They of course can be drawn manually, a nice exercise in manual framing, specifying role, materials, placement, layer.

Auto-building the foundation generates 3D sill plates if the foundation wall default spec has them specified (checked) and sized. Is it there in your foundation wall defaults?

Here is a trendy look we see in windows today. The frames and sash are relatively slim in profile, the color, in and out, is black or dark bronze, and inside, drywall returns execute the minimalist look. Here is a view of a mulled pair of Andersen Series 100 casements. The mull join piece is 1/2" thick, per Andersen specs. Ignore that the pic shows brick finish on exterior. We're going to go with clapboard siding and casings outside. So I examine Andersen's dimensioned section detail for this 100 Series casement, and model the mulled pair. Here is a section view of the window head, and in this view, you can see adjacent the Chief-modeled section, one in which is inserted the Andersen section from their CAD downloads. Ignore that I have drawn this with a jamb extension and an interior casing. What's important is that the window has its elements sized to match the manufacturer's specs, and it is positioned correctly in the in-out position, with its exterior plane projecting 1-5/16" out from its mounting surface, the face of sheathing. Here is the view from outside. You can see that 1/2" mull join space. We are not gonna discuss the color problem here. That's another topic. Mull materials match casing materials, in and out. Here is one view inside, with casing shown. We want the no-casing look, but I wanted to show this with the casing material, which is the same material as the inside face of the 1/2" mull. And then when we remove the casing inside, to try for our drywall-return look, we get this. It's not quite OK in 3D, in that real drywall returns would be inside the opening. Chief makes you put them there manually, using a 3D molding. But let's look at that little chop-out. That's what I want fixed. See it close here. It's annoying enough that the mull color thing presents a hassle, but add this, and it's another burr under the saddle. You can "fix" it by not spacing the windows 1/2" apart. You won't have to fiddle with the absolutely unworkable mull insets, and if you upsize each window by 1/4" in width, your R.O. will be right. Your size callouts in your schedule won't be right, though, if you care about those details.

Your post with the pic shows no stairs above. Just looks like a weird door in a straight wall with an opening and door beyond. When under an open balustrade, as shown to you by the client in the photo in your most recent post, it makes sense to do this. There is no option. Otherwise, it looks architecturally wrong. I suggest two well-done 3D renders, straight tops, and lopped. But hey, we never say no, no? Only guys like Frank Lloyd Wright and Mies Van der Rohe could dictate what they believed was correct.

Does the client really want one of the doors in that pair to be a very expensive custom-made thing? It'll be a hand-made door, with raised panel and sticking different from the ones adjacent. Why do this when the standard pair will look better, be far less expensive, and provide full access to the storage space?

I'm back to report what happened after submitting a case to Chief. Here is what Roy R at Chief suggested as a workaround. This, to get a storypole elevation for top of foundation when the furred wall is separately placed. With an elevation view, generate the storypole dimension. It'll not pick up top of foundation, but pick up top of plate instead. In plan view, move the elevation camera inside the building. Select the storypole dimension, and edit it by selecting the extension picking the plate, moving it to the top of foundation. The elevation line text might need to be edited (mine did not and changed to top of foundation) so edit as needed. Go back to plan view, and move the camera back outside where it was. And this worked!

I tried doing as Brett suggested and it is not a fix. Not just the auto X-section dimension is going DW to DW but so is a manual end to end. Wall elevation views must not include framing. But how could they, really? Chief could suppress it with layer control, but what would be the point? Wall elevations and their brother-in-arms, K&B wall elevations for cabinets, deal with wall surfaces and not structure, and it's because interiors work and cabinet work all goes from the surfaces you can bump a tape into, which is the wall finish.

Thanks!

Is there such a feature? Like as in 3D with objects, or in 2D elevation views. But in CAD details.

Check out this thread.

In a distributor door shop, where door slabs are joined to frames and sills, it's a process called prehanging, and doors that are asymmetrical in design and which have an interior and exterior face, each different, are bought as "handed" slabs. This is what you have going on. You need two door symbols in Chief for this. One right, one left. Show us your result when solving this with two symbols.

I just submitted a case and included a simple plan file, the plan with furred wall one end placed manually, and furred wall opposite end defined in foundation wall. The story pole reporting is done both ends and is as discussed here. It won't pick top of foundation with a manually build furred wall adjacent the foundation wall.

My furring walls were added manually. Thanks, Don, for taking the time to solve this riddle.

No I did not check it in a new OOB template. I suspect it's misbehaving in this plan because it got some radical surgery. I was completely done and framed with heavy editing done to all the wall framing and roof and floor framing. Then, to improve floor performance, the floorframe went from using 9.5" i-joists to the deeper 11.875" ones, and I changed the plan by dropping the basement floor 2-3/8", then editing all the foundation walls to drop the top and bottoms and footings down the 2-3/8", then isolating all the lower floor framing with a layerset and dropping it the same. The plan is perfect in 3D, and all the room specs look as they should in floor 0.

It is picking up top of mudsill, and I could not change the pick point in elevation view. So I changed the text to "Top of mudsill" so as not to confuse the builder. Here is my storypole setup. Foundation top is unchanged from OOB X15. Here is a closeup of my elevation with the storypole dimensions and elevation markers. I put a line with arrows (red) depicting top of subfloor down to top of foundation. 3/4 subfloor, 11 7/8 framing, 1 1/2 mudsill, total 14 1/8. As can be seen, it picks up TOP of mudsill, so I edited the text of the elevation marker to read that. You can see the mudsill I placed with CAD (yellow) so things are clear. So I think, maybe if I take a section view rather than an elevation view, see what happens. Here it is, and whereas the elevation marker in the elevation view (before I edited it to read top of mudsill) read "top of foundation" in the elevation view, here, because it is picking the top of the plate of the furred basement wall, it is reading TOP OF PLATE. Foundation top is not being picked.

Thanks, Glenn. I have learned to edit the storypole elevation markers and names to do what I want, which is to show top of foundation wall (not mudsill), but only in a section view. I cannot find a way to pick it up in elevation. Pics show my section and my elevation. I only want the elevation in the con docs.

Am I missing this in the default settings for auto story pole? I'd like my extension line to be picking up top of stemwall. I know that the mudsill is considered part of the stemwall in Chief modeling, but is there a workaround for this?

If I am going to do interior or exterior 3D camera views close enough to window or patio doors, to see the details of sash, frame, extensions (or returns), I use 3D moldings for them. You used the term "reveal," for what most call jamb extensions, if doing it as millwork, or returns, if doing it in drywall. In the attached image rendered with Chief real time raytracing, an Andersen Series 100 window with transom is shown on left, and a Series 100 gliding patio door with transom is shown on right. Using Andersen's excellent CAD downloads as a resource, I set all the specs in Chief for frame widths, frame depths, sash frame size, door panel frame size, positions within frame for sash, door, exterior projection, etc., so as to get as real as possible. The gaps between interior casings and frames is then measured in a Chief section view, and the 3D moldings created and positioned. I modeled them 3/4" thick by whatever depth needed. Just as the contractor would size them to install. Once such a 3D molding for the jamb extension is done, it can be copied and pasted into position for other like openings in a job. The 3D render image shows the 3/16" reveals where casings overlap the front faces of the extensions. I call it out in the section views shown attached.

Thanks! I had no idea there was a Materials List Layer Set. I though the way what was reported to the ML was via that dialog that has categories.

The framing was built auto, then edited. All the rims got changed because Chief built them a 1.125 engineered lumber. I edited the joist layout and added the blocking for the railing post anchors. That's all.