SHCanada2

it is "measure on gen 1" that I have

I'd strongly suggest you get the GLM50C with bluetooth.

Bosch Model # GLM 50 CX 165 ft. Laser Measure with Bluetooth and Full-Color Display: Amazon.ca: Tools & Home Improvement

 

with the bluetooth connected to the app, no typing. saves a TON of time. typing numbers is no fun.

 

I use Meas on gen 1, it says v1.3.8 on my tablet. interesting that there are two now, as I was emailing the Bosch people about 3 months ago and they said a new version was coming, but I never saw it, so maybe it is out now. Nice guys, very open to suggestions (including the snap to angle for detailed). I just looked in google play and I do not see just a measure on, maybe it is the new version and only available in the US or only on apple or soemthing

 

Couple things. use on a tablet, dont try on a phone. practice one first. it takes a bit getting used to switch the mode from panning to clicking walls. I will accidentally draw walls all the time because I forget to change back to panning.

 

use quick sketch and then convert to detailed to measure. you can use the detail right away, but its a bit of a pain as it does not snap the walls to 90/45. I used to actually start with detail every time, but I practiced with the quick sketch first and it seems better

 

attached is what it looks like, and the resulting output.

 

One limitation is on T walls. You can see in the attached. The software breaks it into two walls. So what I will do to double check the inside dimensions is to create a "dimension line" and take a reading. I also do that for larger spaces, as a double check. Be careful not to measure a wall, and then create a T after you measure. you will lose your original measurement as it does not know how to divide up the measurement correctly, it just dives it, presumably based on scale of where you added the T wall.

 

the other limitation is posts. so I either put a note in or draw a dimension line. one thing, dimension lines do not show in regular wall mode, you have to tap on the arrow

 

For windows, it takes, W, H, from floor, and distance to wall, you can pick left or right

 

the workflow I use is to draw all the walls, then go from wall to wall, tap, tap which side of wall then press the button on the bosch, and it will show up as the dim on the app, save, repeat.

 

The extra dimension lines in the screenshots are the double check for the longer distances. Before I leave I do the rough math in my head to see that the walls add up

 

I dont export for CA, I just move around the app, as the export numbers overlap. you could export and trace in CA, just be careful to use actual measurements. once the app detects an incorrect ratio it will no longer auto size walls, so you have to double check the walls lengths anyway in CA vs Bosch

 

 

 

 

64ave_se_New_detailed_plan.pdf

On 2/26/2021 at 9:03 PM, joey_martin said:

Do you know what that value is relative to?

 

It is actually relative to elevation 0 from what I can tell. The label is misleading, it is only "subfloor height above terrain" if your subfloor elevation is at 0". i.e. if I set my subfloor to be at 36" (in the structure panel of the main floor), this parameter is then set to 0 (grade level), assuming 36" is 36" above grade at the point you are choosing as your reference point.

 

Room structure elevations are referenced to "Something". it does not have to be the main floor subfloor. it can be whatever you deem zero to be. in the case below I deem zero to be elevation of grade, main floor is 33" above.  I do this because that is how I think. i.e. I need 12" of basement wall to be above grade. And when I measure an as built, it is from grade, so I can see the elevations in the structure easily without having to do a storey pole on an elevation, or to do the math. I believe most do not do it this way, most put 0 as main floor subfloor, and adjust the storey pole ground elevation. of course on a sloped lot, this reference then has to be grade somewhere. For me, it is typically the front door

 

 

On 2/26/2021 at 3:25 PM, ChiefRoland said:

Yeah I read it smart Alec, but the terrain is not all the same elevation.  So I don't know if it means "above terrain average elevation" or "above terrain lowest point" or "above terrain highest point"

 it is the terrain object elevation, not contours. 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Gawdzira said:

Just change the roof material to a solid color.

thats what I did, the roof is okay, but then the wall shows, stone shows.

 

14 hours ago, Chopsaw said:

I would try plot lines without fill and add a filled polyline with a blank line style for the roof in the layout file and unfortunately cad lines for the dashed overhangs

 

12 hours ago, richoffan said:

Make a CAD detail from view and you can add all of those and adjust the line style, weight etc. You could use CAD boxes with fill .....

yeah I was hoping people were not going to say that. I don't like the style either, not sure why anyone would care to see the eave area in an elevation. Trying to avoid the CAD if I can as I have to move/resize/redraw ...and I'm not that great with it yet.

a potential customer contacted me and asked if I could do his "style". It is basically plot lines with a grey roof surface.

 

I've tried to get this by doing a color plot lines and white stucco, but it does not work. (roof turned out well but walls, stone did not)

 

I also tried turning layers on and off in elevation to try and get the dashed lines for the eaves, no luck.

 

anyone have any ideas for these two things?

 

thanks

 

 

4 hours ago, Anne_S said:

Hi All,

 

My understanding is that the refresh issue involving global variables in text is considered "expected" behavior.  Our Development team also knows that global variables aren't anyone's favorite to work with, though.  Any time you have a use case that you're addressing using a global variable, feel free to let us know so we can look at providing a better alternative.  You can post in the Suggestions forum (https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/forum/8-suggestions/), e-mail suggestions@chiefarchitect.com, or contact Technical Support (https://support.chiefarchitect.com/).

 

Thanks!

thanks, I put in a suggestion to document the behaviour

 

3 hours ago, HumbleChief said:

And this callout pictured below with the arrow? Is that done manually or has Chief had a tool I've been requesting for years and I simply don't know where it is?

 

Thanks

 

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

 

On 5/9/2021 at 1:25 PM, GeneDavis said:

 

If you have done one this size with ordinary 2x framing, kudos to you and the framer.  I think steel is needed.

 

On 5/11/2021 at 5:29 AM, Ed_Orum said:

It can be difficult to get the wobble out of a wall like this one

 

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 10/15/2016 at 5:24 PM, BrownTiger said:

Not in my experience. First these are global values, but they are set/reset @current view. 

I would never be simply using a value set  by a macro on the floor 1 and read by a macro on floor 2. Because clearly IF you open another plan, mistakenly re-execute macro or had it set by a prior

loaded plan the value will not be correct. However, if your global value is set while viewing floor 1 and used immediately, it will be file. 

 

Macros execute

1) In the order of object creation. Thus I recommend if you creating new plan always place psolid (with an initialize) macro, prior to any walls created.

2) It matters not if an object is outside of the viewport

3) RoomLabels always refreshed when you change layerSet

4) windows / door labels are not redrawn. [They are redrawn if you roll back and force mouse zoom wheel.]

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Joe_Carrick said:

Not true.  The key is parsing the path by using the "\" character.  

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

7 hours ago, Joe_Carrick said:

Are you sure that File.dirname(filepath)+"/firstfloorarea.txt" exists?

 

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:

3 hours ago, glennw said:

The give away that you need to rebuild the terrain is the terrain icon attached to the cursor.

and here i thought it was my graphics card. good to know, thanks

 

3 hours ago, glennw said:

By default, the terrain rebuilds automatically when road objects are added, removed or edited. If it does not, you can select Terrain> Build Terrain .

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

 

 

 

On 9/16/2020 at 12:27 PM, solver said:

Terrain only shows on the floor it was created on, so change floors up and down.

thanks, found mine by dong this

1 hour ago, GeneDavis said:

83 3/8" is the RO height when a 2x10 header with plate under is tight to the top, when 97 1/8" is wall height.

 

I'm not able to access my X12 today but how does Chief autoframe it when the 2x10 header and 82 7/8" window height and 1/2" top clearance is specified?

 

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