SHCanada2

@SNestor look at the one I just posted. the original posted one I had fixed (just did not know how I did it at the time how i did it)

it essentially modified an existing room' structure with the defaults once I moved the wall to make the room puny. Granted the defaults are wrong, but who would have expected this kind of "if room made small, then change other room to defaults" behaviour

plan as I will post: that living label is for the puny room between the interior wall and the foundation wall current elevation everything looks good: move that wall to the foundation, it forces the puny room to become really small (to the left of the stairs) and now the elevation is hooped plan attached chuck fed up.plan

sorry i'm a windows user and posted a zip file to keep the size down. Let me see if i can post a smaller file

i stand corrected "DYNAMIC" defaults. good thing you reminded me otherwise I'd be reading the wrong topic .... and I spend a lot of time reading

Thanks, my next question was going to be, how many people just redraw from scratch after spending hours trying to fix it? Its actually posted at the top, but I think I have most of it documented now. I would suggest that the puny room problem is a bug. i.e. if I have two rooms, setup correctly, and virtually eliminate 1 by moving the wall, the current big room or the puny room, should not magically change elevations based on the defaults. it looks to totally be a function of the room size. but i need to read up some more on the active defaults. So i think the lesson here so far, is I cant just go into the room to change the elevations. I need to setup the floor defaults/structure defaults to match...if I have a tiny room(wall beside foundation). Whereas before I always just set the room elevations to be correct and did not care what the defaults were ...but i'll read up some more on the active defaults before asking for some assistance on the plan thanks all

I shall do that, thanks, it might explain a lot...except for the whole, make the room puny, then bang, CA changes the heights of the current room, but never know, I'll read up on it

ok this is interesting. I go into my room dbx, structure for rough ceiling for basement is at 91, and 94 for stem wall. This is correct, same with my micro room between the wall and the foundation wall. Then I go to edit ->defaults settings->floors and plans->Floor levels->Floor zero and change rough ceiling to 85 just to see what happens, stem wall still at 94. click ok, get out of there, and then go back to my room dbx. The rough ceiling is now 85. I did the same for the top floor except changed floor 1, and sure enough it changed the room on that floor as well. This is interesting because what it means is the room structure rough ceiling height can be overridden by changing the defaults for the floor. But I believe this is inconsistent behaviour. Most other defaults only change, when a new item is done. For instance if I change the default window size , CA does not go around changing my existing windows. Granted floor structure is not the same as room structure, but it obviously is overwriting the room values. also interesting is if I am at the correct 91 and 94, and go and change the edit ->defaults settings->floors and plans->floor/ceiling platform-> floor structure from 10 to 11, my room rough ceiling changes from 91 to 92. This explains why my ceiling went down when I changed from 11-7/8 to 9.25. although I would suggest CA is moving it in the wrong direction. If I decrease my joist height, shouldnt the basement ceiling get taller? the setting lock floor top/bottom on structure resize did not seem to change the behaviour. and it does not seem to change the basement ceiling elevation, it still sits at 10" after I changed the floor to 11, but it does uncheck the default.

..hmm I dont remember, but after I did the video I rechecked the floor 0 defaults and they were not correct (not sure how it got back to that), so now it is back working, for the second time. still seems odd that when I eliminate a room, or make it micro sized, all of a sudden it transfers the defaults to that room. me thinks CA has a "if room size is less than x sq ft, then ignore current room structure heights, and use defaults" rule

attached is a video which shows the problm e 1245980094_bandicam2021-05-2322-18-49-572.mp4

thats where I was, that what the screenshots were from. But I found something more interesting. If I keep the inside wall away from the wall, I can select the "room between the two walls" nd I can set it to 91 in the dbx, click okay, but if I open back up again, it reverts back to 98-5/8, but if I move the left inside side wall by the stairs to the right two bumps, it will keep the 91. I've seen this before, I remember keeping the inside walls away from the concrete foundation walls. This works most of the time, but because I have stairs along the outside wall in this plan, I need to maximize the square footage. I cannot be losing inches simply because I cant get the program to work. Maybe a double wall is the better answer? I cant be the first person to have this problem...

so this got me thinking. The screenshots above are the defaults. so why is there a default checkbox in the defaults dbx. by simple definition wouldnt anything in he default dbx be "default". why is there a check box there? perhaps this is the default from somewhere else? if so, I cannot seem to find it, and the documentation does not seem to differentiate between the dbx called from the default and not called form the default. i tried checking and unchecking, and it does not seem to make a difference, but now it seems that it is working. No idea, its almost like some setting changes a cache or something

found a programmer in France to do it up, $18 see attached video. Where I notice this could be most useful is creating plan options for clients. I just did 5 options of the same plan in the same day for a customer. after option 2 I gave up creating new layouts and just made the changes betting they would not go back to option 2,3,4. So even though I had 5 PDFs of layout with different options, I only had two plans and two layouts. With this tool, I could quickly copy the layout and the plan to a new directory, run the tool, and KNOW that the previous plan and layout were never touched. Part of the problem with the whole renaming method, is I question as to if I "got all references" and am worried that I did not and am worried I will be altering the previous plan. So what I would do to mitigate this is copy off the plan and layout to a backup directory as well. Then on the first save I go and check the filedatetime of the plan file to make sure I am changing the right one. Kind of a pain if you are trying to get a bunch of options quickly in front of the customer, and you know the layout will not change. bandicam 2021-05-23 14-32-56-963.mp4

not with the ladder method of cribbing as you can then nail away on the ladder... or if an engineer says you do not need it

https://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/334/framing-walls-with-different-studs-and-variable-stud-spacing.html https://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/5317/multiple-wall-framing-layers.html

I did something similar in my example above, changed the roof pattern. the problem is that is great for the roof, but he wants everything else plot line. It looks like your example is color plot line, same as my example. which from what I can tell, one cannot get only the back and white pattern to show. i.e. your wall, doors, batten, and if you had brick there, show color fill, as opposed to outline line.

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

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 it is the terrain object elevation, not contours.

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

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