GeneDavis

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."

Just crashed again. Attached is the message I got.

See my system specs in the sig line. I have tried installing other drivers, and all cause the fail which locks Chief and displays the message ending in "device will be removed." Which driver is working for you?

Not helpful, Rob. I'm not a downvoter, but . . .

Chief is pretty short with tutorials on raytrace videos. Kind of amazing. But they do say that for exteriors, physically based is not what to do. CPU raytrace is what they say to use.

Client wants to see exterior colors and I've done all her versions of combos of siding and trim. What is best for rendering true colors? I have the sun set for location and time zone and the north arrow is true. Raytrace? Physically based? And should sunlight lux remain at the OOB 100,000? If not then what?

And here it is with solids doing the soffit face, the sided segment, and the trim board along bottom of siding.

Thanks, Joey. I had that one checked, which gave me the big box underneath. The monster pork-chop return. Your post got me looking at it again, and I tried a different option. See the pic. That one gives me the raked fascia I want, and now I can do solids to do the under-roof and the sided and trimmed end. I might be able to frame it with Chief in 3D, but if not, can do CAD details to finish the work for this part of the project.

I extended a roof edge down over an entry, and did the boxed eave option plus default to overhang and input enough so it reaches back to the house wall, giving me the low-over-entry Frank Lloyd Wright thing I wanted, and now I want to do the eave end differently from what Chief does. Any suggestions? See the pic. I want a 1x8 fascia under the 5-pitch roof running from upper fascia to that at the canopy edge, a 1x4 piece of base running horizontally from the low eave back to the house face, and in the triangle, lapped siding to match the wall at house. What Chief gives is one big 1x thickness pork chop soffit box end, and it stops at the upper roof edge.

I'm looking for the single fan or double fan outdoor unit, and maybe for later use, ceiling cassettes and one-way ceiling cassettes. A floor unit, goes on the wall, but on floor like a radiator, would be good, too. I'll check the Warehouse. Thanks.

The kind with the compressor and fan. Chief only has a compressor unit.

Thanks, Jacob. I was unaware it was done for doors.

Patio door products from the recognized brand-name maker such as Pella, Andersen, Marvin, and more, are tricky when modeling in Chief, because of the way Chief handles sizing. This, for both sliders and hinged patio doors. The 60610 slider in Andersen's 400 series is 71 1/4" wide x 82 3/8" high, and that is the frame size. I specify the jambs for these clad units at 3/4 thick x 8 wide, with a -2" inset, to get the exterior projection the clad frames have, a look I want in 3D views from outside. Specify a slider in Chief at that size and Chief models the unit with the door panels at that size, and for height, places the top of door panel at your specified 82 3/8", with a 1/16" margin atop, then the frame. So in 3D, you get a door unit that, floor to frame top, is 82 3/8 + 1/16 + 3/4 = 83 3/16" high. One can check this out by taking a section view, but you are getting only a vertical section. We cannot see in Chief what the actual build is in 2D plan view because of the simplified way Chief draws a door. You have to keep this all in mind when framing, carefully making allowances height- and width-wise in order to get rough openings sized for real-world building. It is of no concern to you if you aren't doing wall framing or if generating framing, aren't doing dimensioned wall framing in con docs. But where this starts to suck, is when you are wanting transom windows mulled to these patio doors, and windows with transoms adjacent on elevations, and you want horizontal alignment. You also want the transom window widths to match that of the patio door, so all looks good when mulling. I do the workaround by downsizing the patio door in height and width. See here, a 24 high transom atop a window, and adjacent, a 24 high transom a door. Both transoms have their bottoms at 82 3/8 inches, which matches the height of the 60610 door unit. You can see heights all matching. Units, casings. The window unit is mulled, the door and xsom, not yet. The transom is specified at its real-world height and width. 71 1/4" width to match door below. But because of the way Chief does door sizing, the door shown is specified at 69.75" w. x 80.875" h., with frame spec'd at 3/4 x 8 with a -2" inset, just like all the windows in the picture. Before trying to mull door to window, things look good. Look what happens next when I mull. Since window units size by frame and door units size by frame opening (or panel sizes with zero clearance), Chief gets confused when doing a mull, and adds an unwanted margin around the window unit, but not the door unit. That nice matchup on width and height seen in the unmulled view is gone. But there is a workaround, and it uses the (in which release was this new?) frame positioning option for windows, which sizes windows by frame if checked one way, and by frame opening if checked the other way. It is buried in the frame panel, and my OOB default has the window frame checked for "has frame." When you change the option within that to "window size excludes frame." a funny way to say you are sizing by frame opening, you can make this all work. See this pic. All is good! But to get there I had to downsize the door and the window above it. All looks exactly right in elevation, and by fiddling with the framing specs (r.o. clearances) in the unit before generating framing, it'll frame right, but the schedule will need some work to make things understandable for the window quote to be done by the suppliers. If I use the size in the schedule it will be wrong. So, how do you handle these?

See-thru house, but opaque solids. I want to show HVAC schemes.