SHCanada2

thanks, I put in a suggestion to document the behaviour

I do manually but I am also ignorant to perhaps a better way

My own house gable is about 24' H x 42W but with a break for a loft at 12', so call it 24'x30W with 8 windows (2 rakes) and patio doors After I drew it up I sent it to my engineer. He specified 2x6 wall framing with 4' blocking. 6ply 2x6 main column holding up the ridge beam(which differs from yours) I framed it, and it was wobbly. I called the engineer and said I thought it might fall over. He came within a few hours and looked at it an basically said, the calcs are good. If I wanted to add reinforcement I could add a column LVL on the inside My opinion was it was wobbly because there is essentially no sheathing with all the windows, and because the 2x6column was built up. He asked me if I glued it and I said no. So the jury is still out on if it was the glue Instead I added 2x6 below every header (I was originally trying to keep the distance between windows to a minimum and did not put in any framing below or above the header (other than 1 2x6), which differs from the drawing below), and put Simpson L50 L brackets on every window corner and two L70 L on every header(vertically to attach to columns as you have 5.5 less 3= 2.5 in to put in a bracket), and bolted the 2x6 column together. It was much better, but still a little wobbly. Once the windows went in, eveything was pretty much good (no cracks on the windows yet (6 years later). below is the framing, except I never built the framing above/below the headers as shown (except the top), only a 2x6 on flat above and below. oh and in the end it wasnt a christmas tree for the middle column(as shown below). I think it was 6 for the column plus 1 for the jack stud on either side, so 8 total

Many years ago around here, what was called a "2x10 on flat" was often detailed at the bottom of stairs to make for more headroom. What are people doing these days and how are you detailing it, given the auto joist creation feature in Chief? Thanks Jason

also, thanks to @Alaskan_Son for explaining a few things about macros: 1. macros fire when the text macro management box is opened 2. global variables instances on one view and used on that view should always be correct, as long as the macro which creates the global variable is called on that view (which seems to be my layout test above)

On a layout I've been testing two layouts which create the same global variable, lets call it $layoutglobal, which is set by a macro, lets call it globalmacro. This macro sets the value to "Layout14". I create a read macro which is called readlayoutglobal and it has in it macros.globalmacro If I create a textbox on my layout, lets suppose my layout file is called Layout 14, and put in %readlayoutglobal%. The text box will update to show "Layout14", as one would think. I save as my layout to Layout 15 and reopen Layout 14 as well (two layouts open) I then change globalmacro in Layout 15 to have $layoutglobal="Layout 15". the textbox in Layout 15 changes to "Layout 15" If i click back on layout 14, the textbox is still showing "layout 14". If i goto another layout page and add a text box and add the macro, it shows "Layout 14", if I go back to Layout 15 and do the same thing, it shows "layout 15". I also created this global variable in a plan, and set it to "plan 15", but "plan 15" would not show up in either of my labels This would imply one of two things, when clicking on a layout, the macros always fire, or if there are two global variables with the same name in two different layouts, there are two instances (effectively not global between layouts) Either way this seems to guarantee one can depend on the global variable in the layout to not be overwritten? or am i missing a use case? where I am going with this is: The plan file layout box object in layout contains the "Referenced file". I could put in a macro in the label for the layout box which then retrieves all values of interest from the layout plan, and stick them in global variables, for use in the layou, with no fear of being overwritten from somewhere else

so i just tried changing the directory and it works as well I changed: C:\Users\Jason\Documents\CA\test folder to C:\Users\Jason\Documents\CA\testy folde and changed Untitled 12 to Untitled 14 and put in this new directory. Then repeat the steps above The only thing I missed is after you open the modified layout. Select Tools-->Layout->update all views to update the cameras. But this is no different than usual for me as I keep them as update on demand so what this implies is you could create a layout like steven described, and save it as the template, but instead of using the default plan, use the plan in the directory structure you want to use(by copying the default plan to it). Or you could open the default plan and save it in the new directory and then send it to the template layout, either way works. as long as the template file is referencing a plan which follows your directory structure For instance suppose this is your naming convention: C:\CA\JOBDESCRIPTION\JOB NAME.plan note that the path is 22 characters for the directory and filename would be the one referenced in your template layout. Then if you have a new job you would create a directoy called C:\CA\JONS JOBSITE__\ and create a plan called Johns jo.plan as the filler of __ and the truncation of job to jo maintain the same number of characters then you would copy the template layout to C:\CA\JONS JOBSITE__\ then rename the layout to whatever you want then open up the layout in a hex editor and replace C:\CA\JOBDESCRIPTION\JOB NAME.plan with C:\CA\JONS JOBSITE__\Johns jo.plan and voila, when you open the new layout it will point to Johns jo.plan when you start s new project plan you would then save the plan ideally back in my younger years I'd create a little windows program to just setup the directory and create them, and create the new file name and copy the layout to that directory, rename, and replace the Hex. There might be a command line hex editor which takes a search and replace as a parameter. If this was the case, it could all be done with a batch file

I just tested it by doing the following: create a new plan called Untitled 12.plan create a new layout called Untitled 12.layout keep in same directory send a camera, floor plan SPV, elevation, another SPV form Untitled 12.plan to Untitled 12.layout save close CA copy Untitled 12.plan to Untitled 13.plan open CA. open Untitled 13.plan, change some walls, that change the roof. observe that the camera, elevation, floor plans have all changed save close CA download a hex editor. open Untitled 12.layout in hex mode change Untitled 12 to Untitled 13 in 4(or however many are created) instances in the file where it they have a view named (the other instances are for last file opened). These are at the end of the Untitled 12.layout file save open CA. open Untitled 12.layout observe that it shows the contents of Untitled 13.plan, not Untitled 12.plan This means you can effectively change the referenced plan file in a layout file, outside of CA. IF and only if the path is same number of characters. i.e I tried changing to Untitled 123456 and it did not work of course I did not try to change the last directory, but I'll give it a go and post back

interesting as I'm tired of sending to layout and then adjusting where it lands. . I'm not sure for your demo why after connecting the first plan, why you could not just delete it. i.e. instead of picking the default plan to put to layout, open the default plan, save as, then put those views to layout, then delete that plan. ..probably the same effect as what you have. The plot line thing is interesting. I'm almost thinking there may be a way to automate this...well I just checked and there is a way to automate this if and only if you maintained the same number of characters in the path. i.e. if your path on one project was: C:\Users\Jason\Documents\CA\JohnnysDesign\JDPlan.plan then your next project would need to be C:\Users\Jason\Documents\CA\BobsDesign___\BDPlan.plan The way to do this would be to alter the layout file with an outside program. I used a hex editor to replace all instances of the plan name, with the new name, in the layout file and then saved it, then opened in in CA and it worked. I tried the same thing with different file lengths but it did not work so if you maintained same number of characters in the file path, you could automate this even further than you have. As well, when I tested, you do not have to change the view or do anything for the updated views to show in layout. ..might not be a bad solution if one could live with the same number of characters in the plan. The layout filename size should not matter

do you adjust the scale of the plan (File->Print->Drawing sheet setup) to match the house size. i.e. if you start and draw 50' wall and realize that is only half your real estate, do you then go and change this scale so the 50' wall is now 75% of your real estate, or do you do something different? thanks

yes, because it shows in the connect leader line box. and I write to a log file every time I read it (For testing),so i can tell it is being read successfully below you can see the problem. before I took this screenshot, the floor area was 1273. Then I moved a wall in the plan and went to layout and this is what it shows. Connected leader line box is now at 1218(which matches the new area in the plan) but rich text box is still at 1273. The rich text box has only %firstfloorarea% and all that macro has in it is $firstfloorarealayout but if I open up the text box and then close it, it will change to match correctly:

and here i thought it was my graphics card. good to know, thanks i suppose i wasnt expecting to not see it show on the 3d when I add it in 3d. especially when there are lots of videos out there showing thats how it works. I fiddled around for an hour or so thinking it was a layer problem. The above states the terrain is rebuilt when a road is added, it doesnt imply to see the road, the terrain needs to be rebuilt. as a poor analogy, I do not need to rebuild the wall framing to see the cabinet attached to the wall. anywho glad it is sorted out

found the problem "auto rebuild terrain" must be checked, or user must manually build the terrain. elevation of building is irrelevant. The user doc is silent that this affects driveways, unless one is to know that driveways is "elevation data" Building the Terrain When terrain is generated, Chief Architect gathers all elevation data that has been added to the model and creates a terrain surface. The program interpolates the data to produce smooth contours. A terrain perimeter with no additional elevation data drawn within it generates terrain that is flat at the elevation 0' - 0", or sea level. Select Terrain> Driveway> Straight Driveway, then click and drag a line within the Terrain Perimeter. Multiple driveway sections can be connected together.

I can draw a driveway on the terrain in 3d overview but it does not show up in 3D. I can see it on the plan view. I then created a brand new house with foundation, and i could draw the driveway and see it in 3d. But once I adjusted the building elevations to the ones I had in the other plan (top of main floor is at 33") , and set the terrain to manual, I cant see a new driveway once I draw a new one in 3d (although I can see the original). I then moved the main floor back to 0" and then drew a new driveway in 3d, but I cannot see that one either, only the original Anyone seen this issue? you can see the many times i tried below. but the 3d only shows the original. if i look "under" the terrain, it is not there either. demo plan attached driveway.plan

well some more information. it only frames like if i have it as "Boxed" and only until I put the top of window at 93.25. 93.25+3+3+9.25+0.5(R0)=109, which is what my wall height is. once I set to 93.5, CA removes the top and bottom members from the header. So I suppose that is consistent for a boxed header, just not what i want. ...wait for X13 maybe. but for those that are not 2x10, i should change the window default to boxed, as then at least they will show correctly

thanks, found mine by dong this

well, you picked up on it I think. The reason it shows as it did in mine is there was insufficent space. 109" wall, 96 to top of window. 96+1/2+9.25+3+1.5=110.5. 1.5" too tall. but in testing this, it still does not show up at 94.5 and instead puts in cripples. BUT if Iower the window even more if does show up.(see sceenshots below) Bizzare? This explains why I saw this same "missing member" in some of the videos @genedavis: so are you having to add in this horiziontal member for every plan that there is a 2x10 header (or other size as the 2x6 on the window below shows no member) and the window heights match the door height?

"Check out the video starting at 4:40 https://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/10231/wall-framing-what-s-coming-next.html?playlist=171" looks like they have added it by giving the ability to specify "top of wall" for the header location On a side note, some framers here will frame the header at the top of tall walls as well. helps with insulation as the header is effectively in the attic Thanks for providing the video

so if I lower the roof, I can get the wall to 60", but I cannot get the heel of the truss to be tall enoguh then. It looks like the software does some sort of math, that if the roof is x inches higher than the wall it builds another wall on top of the wall. but if it is more than x+y it does not. For instance if I change my roof baseline height to 280, the wall build to 60", but the truss heel is only about 13", If I change to 290, no wall change and the truss height is 23". When I change the roof height to 283, i get the goofy wall on wall again with the truss drawn through it this is totally repeatable behaviour. I did some more testing. the "top up" wall starts when I increase the roof baseline to 281 and stops when I increase the roof baseline past 289. In summary, if the roof baseline is greater than 280 or less than 290, I get the top up wall effect. This means I can only get a truss heel height of 13" or less, or 23" or higher, without having a top up wall being auto built(and my truss being shown as through the top up wall) Bizarre

Been working on this for two weeks now, Even recreated my plan as a simple box. and followed the instructions. had to deviate on the ceiling plane because it was creating a gable wall instead of a tall wall. the ceiling plane extends to the outside of the gable wall. The tall wall is now drawing correctly I need essentially a siccor truss with a different height at the top than height at the wall. I tried using an energy heel without much luck so I went with specifying the roof plane higher than the ceiling plane and specifying two different pitches The problem is the end walls keep drawing higher than I have stipulated in the room specification under "structure". I have rough ceiling hight as 60: and ceiling ( as 266 1/2"(as this is the third floor). but the section keeps showing a higher wall. when I play with the ceiling plane baseline it just lowers the truss and it builds it into the wall. I tried rebuilding the wall And my one wall has another wall auto built on top of it. Its like its trying to build a wall to part way to the roof. Its not all the way Does someone have a simple plan with a parallel chord type of setup and where the room structure absolute ceiling height(I assume this is the top plate) matches the section drawing? I'm trying to use a siccor truss and I have the ceiling plane ay 6 5/8 pitch and roof at 7". Cieling plane outside bottom height is 270 1/2. Roof baseline is 282. So I'm expecting either a 12" truss or 12" plus perhaps the depth or something. And it does look like it builds the proper height of the truss. only problem is the wall. It's being drawn 13" too tall. I tried lower my celing but the trusses just get built through the wall. at my wits end