GeneDavis

I found the culprit. Me. It was me just being sloppy. Did not link the newly saved-as layout to the saved-as plan file, and the schedule was not in synch.

Renumber? How? I thought a new schedule would renumber. Can't find in plan if there's no W04 in the schedule.

Why would this be? I delete the schedule, generate another, get the same thing.

Chief has no "automatic" gusset plates. Take a section, do a CAD detail from view, draw your gusset polylines, copy them, paste in place back in the live section, select each and make a 3D solid with whatever thickness you do for the gussets, then mirror around the rafter bent, and copy down the line. Then ask your building inspector whether he'll permit you to build this without an engineer seal on the prints.

I try for 7.5 or a little less, and go with tread depth of 10.5. Using an old standard from memory rise plus run equals 18, I'm right on with that config. Using Joe's 2R + T = 24 to 26, my numbers come to 25.5, not ideal, but OK. When there is plenty of space I like to go down to 7.25 with 10.75 treads. There is a huge diff in comfort ascending a stair that is 7.25 x 10.75 versus a 7.75 x 10. The problem with the treads wider than a 10" run, if it's for a hardwood staircase, typically 1" oak treads, is that the stair parts suppliers make the treads for the 10" run size, and not wider. The builder has to get treads from a local millwork shop custom sized to the 10+ inch run.

Nice patch, Steve. @JLHomeCo Hi, Lauren! I've a question as re the roof plan you show with a couple of handwritten notes, the photo of the paper plan page in your opening post. The plan says it's a roof truss plan, but only shows roof planes and bearing walls. Is that part of a complete plan set with elevations for all four sides of the model? We'd like to see those elevations if available. As Steve said in his post above this, his model of a roof with the planes all joining and "working" won't win any awards for roof design. Maybe whoever designed the plan that resulted in the paper prints that include that roof view can show us something, some way to place that 6-pitch roof plane facing the front, so those walls look better. When a designer works with 2D software, or draws by hand, and a plan footprint has the complexities of this project, it often happens that they draw either impossible roofs, or roofs that really don't "work right" when you flesh them out in 3D. That's maybe what is happening here. So post those elevations if you have them, please. We may be missing something.

I'm not gonna download it to see. Four others already have and I'd bet you'll get some feedback. I see you are new here with only a few posts. There have been discussions, a number of them here on Chieftalk, the subject being something like "how do I roof this?" They always result in experienced users saying the same thing. Auto roof the thing, then manually edit as needed. Many more complex than your builder client might build, and they get auto-roofed. As I said earlier, the whole thing begins with the floor plan and ALL room heights defined, then all walls on which roof bears getting the right roof spec. Have you seen this video? One of the first that pops up on YouTube when searching Roofs Chief Architect.

Post the plan, please. If it seems to big, strip it of everything you've added beyond just basic structure of walls, floors, and roofs. Delete cabinets, take out that fireplace, etc. Then it ought to zip and attach at less than the 14MB max. Someone will roof it all for you, I'm sure. But you really ought to learn how to do it yourself. All it takes is two clicks to join two intersecting planes. But the beginning of it all, is the setup before saying AUTO ROOF THIS. Room heights, overhangs, pitches, gable or not, etc., etc.

Pro tip: the valleys and hips of two meeting differently-pitched roof planes do not cross the corners, and those roofs have different heel-stand heights, when common roof overhangs are specified. Those hips and valleys are called irregular, and old-school roof-cutters have a vulgar name for them.

Asphalt shingles are a no-go for a 2/12 pitch. Metal panel roofing or membrane or torchdown is going to be needed. Any window can be changed out for a shorter one. Happens every day in remodeling. Just be aware of egress for bedrooms. A large DH that meets egress size minimum can be replaced with a smaller casement window.

Well, I successfully changed the plan so as to have an 11.875" depth floor frame in this one story house over walkout basement. I thought I would describe the steps to see what others that needed to do this can offer as a critique. First, I needed to do it this way because I had built and edited and annotated the floor framing and the wall framing in the lower walkout basement level. I needed to retain this. Selected a main floor room, edited its floor structure depth from 9.5" framing depth to 11.875". Copied this floor structure to all the other rooms on floor 1. Switch floor to level 0, select a room, lower floor elevation by 2-3/8", copy this to all other rooms in floor In elevation/section view, edit all foundation wall bottoms to lower them 2-3/8". Do this by editing the FOOTINGS. In plan view level 0, use all levels OFF and select mudsill, then joists, then beams, then rimboard, and edit all to be deeper (mud sills move down 2-3/8") Use same level 0 view and level control to select and move all wall framing down 2-3/8" That's it. Done.

Isn't this BASELINE HEIGHT minus TOP OF PLATE HEIGHT? Those two elevations are in the the roof dialog. Have you explored a macro to produce the heel height number you seek? And where on con docs do you want it reported?

You need to dig into Chief so as to understand what walls do. Have you tried making a plan as a way of learning how the program works? Watched any training videos? As for concrete-panel-wall buildings, are you up to speed on construction details? Bearings? Roof structures? Roof structure bearings?

It's a roof framing spec thing. Reduce the height of the eave subfascia by 2.25"

I'd determined the floor could be framed using span tables in TJI's Specifier's Guide doc. The tables are built around code minimums. The builder told the client floors would be bouncy. So I dug into improving, going up in series but at same 9.5 depth, topping out at the costly series 230 TJIs. That's where others suggested the job go. It turns out that the Series 110 11.875" do far better at a much lower cost premium. i know I could just change the text callouts on the con docs, but wanted to see what it takes to true the 3D. Hardly any work if you haven't framed, but there's some detail if you have and need to retain all the arrangements and details like plumbing boxouts.

The problem is with the way Chief does floor-level 3D. I now have Chief on and can see. Changing the floorframe depth from 9.5 to 11.875 moves the floor zero ceiling below down 2-3/8", but the floor level for floor zero remains unchanged. Since I have all the floor zero wall framing built, and with some of it edited in bearing wall openings, I'll want to lock all the wall framing, edit the floor zero floor down 2.375", then using all layers off but wall framing and mudsills, move that down as required. Then I'll have to make sure the foundation gets edited to ensure the footings are where they should be, and the manually edited frostwalls and stepdowns are all tweaked. Whew! What a mess. The stairs will auto adjust to the additional 2.375" of rise, but I may want to add a tread to get the step rise more comfortable.

It's about drywall. 5/8 at ceiling, two 48" boards, the rockers have that little lever in their pocket to jack the lower board tight to the upper one already screwed on, the bottom gap is 1/2". 9 foot walls get 54 inch boards. Thus 97 1/8" and 109 1/8".

Need to change from 9.5" joists to 11.875", and the framing is heavily edited and annotated. What's your preferred way? I thought I'd lock the framing, ensure autoframing is off, resize the floor frame spec in one of the rooms, copy it everywhere, and then edit the framing for depth. Better way? I won't be back on Chief for a bit so thus the question.

My default window for the plan is a single casement, hinge left. I place two fixed windows in position, the upper considered a transom window, open the spec dialog, and because each component is a fixed window, the hinging is grayed out and not applicable. I mull the two to make one joined unit, and the hinging in the dbx is grayed out and not applicable. But in the window schedule, the unit is called out as HL. Why?

Robert's way is what I would do, and it produces information that is a good starting point for specifying the tapered roof insulation needed to build the cricket.

Who has already reported this? No sense in filing a ticket if Chief's working on this. I thought I was safe sending a nicely edited and annotated deck framing plan to layout, thinking it was plot-line-like and would remain OK on the layout page if the framing went missing in the plan model, but no, the framing ain't a plot line thing when sent to layout. If your framing goes into the ether, your layout which is live, gets its framing members blanked. Sucks.

Seems new to X15.

If a bug it needs to be fixed. Chief X15 still has no separate defaults for deck rim joists and width comes from floor framing. I set floor at i-joist sizing for joists and 1-1/8" rimboard and X15 uses the 1-1/8 rims for deck framing which involves tedious editing to correct. I suggest a change to deck framing defaults long ago but it ain't done and it's annoying.

I am reworking a plan due to client changes to the roof, and have had to delete all roof planes, roof framing, and build new, plus all affected walls. The plan has decks at front and rear, with framing that had been meticulously edited. I have lost it multiple times and cannot recover it, but what could have caused it to delete? Deck room defs, deck planking all remain, but the framing goes away.

Were his framers his inlaws? In the door spec dialog, one can open the rough opening tab, and specify top and side clearance, but Chief does not permit you to do what is needed for installation of a pocket door kit. Commonly used kits will say you need an R.O. width equal to twice nominal door width plus 2 inches, or something like that, and about what you said for height. But having learned your lesson, maybe it should be you that writes up a clearly written suggestion in the Suggestions subsection of Chieftalk, in which you lay out the case for specifying rough opening clearances separately for each side of an opening. Use the terms "latch side" and "opening side."