GeneDavis

OK I am back with Chief and can say that truss rebuild works fine for an untouched truss after raising the roof (and baselines) 2". The issue was with a truss I had edited the tails on, and maybe had jiggled the top chord somehow to maybe fix it? That truss would not rebuild as expected, so I deleted it, placed a new one and it generated as expected.

Tx, Chop. I'll get back to it tomorrow nite and report.

My action raised the roof planes as expected. Should I not have raised the baselines? Is that my problem? Do baselines even HAVE an elevation?

I've no Chief for a bit, but no, I did not try s new one right alongside.

Unlocked, yes.

Find my earlier thread of 48 hours ago, wall junction edit. That's the plan. i went ALL OFF, turned on all roof planes, baselines, ridge caps, moved all up 2". Then got stumped when force rebuild wouldn't do as expected.

You saw the word "foam," right? Unvented roof, conditioned attic space, 7 inches closed-cell foam against underside of deck.

I have a complex trussed roof arrangement done and worked with the truss builder's engineer to figure out the scheme, then built the scheme into my Chief model. Then he comes back at me after he runs the loads (92 psf ground snow) and says we need two inches more heel height, up to 9.5 inches from the 7.5 we had when I built all the trusses. I know, 7.5 seems light for a place where you have all the snow but we're going to foam the roof. Anyhow, I choose a truss and do a forced rebuild, after I have raised the roof, and the truss top chords don't jump up to the raised roof. Why not? It's going to be a lot of work drawing all new trusses.

The only two there aren't the greatest. Here is the one that is closed. https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/daaaaec5-da1a-4985-9fe7-6dc9dfd454bc/Shower-Curtain-and-2-Towel-Set

Thanks! I fiddled with mine some more and got it to work! The behavior of the edit wall junction in this particular situation is quirky and unpredictable.

Thanks, Chopsaw. But I am not able, no matter what I do, to reproduce your moves. I am still failing. I'm unable to get the invisible room divider wall's length to 5-1/2" and I have tried everything. I open its spec, set length at 5-1/2", and it won't go there. It seems to want to snap to a 4" length. I have grid snaps off. If I get the stemwall end where needed by dragging the room divider wall there, I am unable to get the Siding-6 wall to come to the junction, no matter how I "edit" the wall layers to improve the wall junction. I'm lost. How about dropboxing the file back to me, as you have fixed it, and I run with that. Or maybe someone can do a Skype or GoToMeeting with me.

I have Glenn's file and can see there's a solution, but cannot get the result needed in my model. I place a dividing wall but cannot edit its length to 5.5". It wants to remain at 4. Have tried the wall junction edits in every sequence. Nothing gets me there. The model is large because it's populated with furniture and because it is all trussed.

The little yellow return should be moved 2" in the minus-y direction. And I cannot succeed. How about a video?

Thanks. Looks like I need to use a CAD patch. I can live with it, but will file a ticket with Chief. I'll try something else, too. The stemwall gets a 2" facing on inside of rigid foam, and I'll add that layer to the wall.

A pony wall, a foundation wall, and an interior wall have a close crash. How can I get the junction needed. It is in bedroom 2 on the walkout lower level, and I drew a CAD line. I want the pony wall and foundation wall to join. The close proximity of the interior wall seems to be interfering with what I want to do. It's 30 megs so I am trying Dropbox. Let's hope this link works. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8bntwbmjvqnst5b/AAA2O9cjFuOU5yJ7aN0Z0Fh7a?dl=0

Doing a web search for REVIT WALL SWEEPS, it looks as if something as simple as a chair rail is one example. And paneled wainscot is another. Methinks the OP needs to bone up on all things 2D and 3D in molding polylines. i remember coming to Chief a newbie, my head full of other software's terms, conventions, and methods. It's like learning a new language.

Thanks all. So day-yum if I didn't do it backwards, but still got the results I needed. I got it by setting the pony wall default view as bottom. All was OK in my view to show foundation, saved with layerset i named FOUNDATION, which only had the exterior walls visible. No interior walls, no openings. Then in my view for LOWER FLOOR PLAN, I changed each wall with stemwall under to show UPPER, not changing the default view of pony wall, which remains LOWER. Saved this view, shipped to layout, and I'm good. What got me right was not touching the pony wall default view setting. I'll go back and do it toggling the pony wall default view instead. So what's the diff here? I'm assuming that saving a plan view saves this with it: the layerset, the anno set, and all default settings.

Why would one need to do this, when the truss outfit only needs the plate geometry, the ceiling geometry, the heel heights, overhangs, and pitches, and her Mitek (or other) software goes to work. All Ms Trussie has to do is place the girders and the overbuilds, the rest gets generated by the software, including the webbing, of course. So why must you do what Mitek does? Are the trusses exposed, i.e., are they architectural?

I began a topic before about this, got good responses, even videos, but it still wasn't clear. Level 0 is a walkout basement all finished with rooms. 3/4 of its perimeter has woodframed walls with 5-foot stemwalls ("frost walls") below. Those walls are pony walls, the Chief wall transition for my model being at the bottom level of the 4" floor slab that's the floor structure for this level. To do a foundation plan, one wants the lower half of the walls, 8" concrete, to display. With footings, steps, etc. The floor plan view shows only those parts of the level that are room-height stemwalls, and all the exterior woodframed walls, plus of course the interior walls. I got everything to work and display and shoot to layout as wanted, but not without a lot of trial and error. I'm still a little confused.' The method involved doing a layer to isolate all the level's interior walls so as to get a clear foundation plan. It involves setting things a certain way in the pony wall display in the pony wall defaults, and then in setting display for the pony walls with the stemwalls below. Will one of our excellent video tutorial makers show us how this is done, and key in on the make-or-break settings? I'm not a video maker, and have no wifi for the next week, and am here in the boonies with a bar and a half of cell phone service. Chief says I'd better get connected soon, or it will shut down.

Any stepdown truss is dealing with multiple roof planes. Please post the question more clearly. It seems like you are referring to something else here.

What exactly do you want the material list to report? Draw a simple 4 wall house, put in one door, one window, auto-build the roof, draw a foundation under it, slab or stemwalls, your choice, auto-frame the whole thing, then generate the all-floors material list. Examine it carefully and then come back here and tell us with specifics, what won't work for you. AFAIK, the only thing you can control as to how quantities are reported is the framing. If you have and use Excel, you can export it as such, open in Excel, and change it to whatever you need.

Thanks! I found the one I did three years ago, and recall what I got into doing it. Using Sketchup, I modeled one of Kohler's SS apron sinks, imported it into Chief, and then used the Kohler top cutout template data to create the cutout polyline that's the part of the sink symbol's CAD block that does the cutout. It was that exercise that taught me about how symbols that insert into cab tops cut counters. Yours is great and does what mine does not, which is to ease the cutout's top edge. For max reality when doing 3D renders, yours is best.

I never do these except once and recall having to make a new CAD block for the symbol so it worked.

I've done that and it does not give good results for me.

Thanks, Joey. I'll write up a suggested improvement. Doing it manually, and with returns, would be tedious.