BenPalmer

The problem is the different molding lines are on different levels and so they aren't snapped together. I like to draw these in floor plan view to avoid this issue. one is on the 2nd floor, and the other is on the attic floor. simply delete one of them, and go to the floor plan view, and select the molding line (turn on molding layer) the lines are thin, so if you can't find them, use the 'all off' layer set and turn on moldings, and you will see them. then simply select the line, then select the diamond handle at the end, and extend it in the direction you want and they will be joined. if you want the straight ones that aren't on the corners to have a return, then do the same thing, pull new line with the diamond handler 90 degrees towards the interior of the building an inch or two and adjust length for desired look. Hope that helps.

There are lots of things in the code that are not enforced that could be. I find that as new plan reviewers come in, or reviewers take a training, or start reading things more, that is when you start seeing them enforce things they didn't before. I'd say that definition seals it pretty good.

I see where you are going. I concede that it isn't specific, but I think it's vague by design so that each municipality can determine what "the line used to determine the fire separation distance" is, however, throughout section 302 including exceptions, the 'lot line' is sprinkled into the wording. So most places define or interpret that line to be the lot line. Incorrectly or not. Good luck fighting them on it. Hope you win. --- R302.1 Exterior walls. Construction, projections, openings and penetrations of exterior walls of dwellings and accessory buildings shall comply with Table R302.1(1); or dwellings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section P2904 shall comply with Table R302.1(2). Exceptions: 1. Walls, projections, openings or penetrations in walls perpendicular to the line used to determine the fire separation distance. 2. Walls of dwellings and accessory structures located on the same lot. 3. Detached tool sheds and storage sheds, playhouses and similar structures exempted from permits are not required to provide wall protection based on location on the lot. Projections beyond the exterior wall shall not extend over the lot line. 4. Detached garages accessory to a dwelling located within 2 feet (610 mm) of a lot line are permitted to have roof eave projections not exceeding 4 inches (102 mm). 5. Foundation vents installed in compliance with this code are permitted.

1 hour required in phoenix 2012 IRC

Yes, printing of the typical items are much faster, and no issues. However, somewhat off topic, would love to see the printing of 'rendering techniques' speed up dramatically. That is just as painful as the time frames listed above. Seems like it renders 3 times before it will finally print instead a screen grab which is what 'print image' does, doesn't it?

Using this post for the opportunity to repeat the feature request to have functional spreadsheet capabilities that can do basic mathematics. Not even looking for complex functions, but simply mathematics would be great.

But why not just use your new layouts with the existing plan, you could save that 30 minutes. What am i missing? For me, the existing building, elevations, dimensions, foundation, dimensions, annotations are done and easy to show 'as-built' and 'demo' conditions, and simply update/change the existing plan to what is needed. Then I would just use my new layouts for the latest codes. My number of pages have also increased significantly from that long ago, but it's still worth keeping the original model that is done, and use new layouts. Just curious your process, thanks if there is a better way.

I use old plans all the time for stock and reuse, etc. My experience is that the time it takes to update some items to the latest version is much faster then working on the old plan and definitely faster then starting over. This is due to all the new and great tools of X7 compared to the old version, and many of my templates including latest codes and details are in the new version as well, and even just losing time in remember how the old version does things. With importing layer sets and defaults, it is usually just some line weight and some other defaults that need updated. Maybe 30 minutes of getting it up and going to the latest version. Hope that helps.

Larry, the idea referenced was for a new feature to be able to use the 'change line/arc' tool at the top of the wall. We could add to that a feature to be able to add a profiled cap...perhaps using railing wall cap could work? I like the roof on top as well. However, if the situation warrants and I decide a polyline would be better and want it to show as a wall in floor plan view, I simply put it on the wall layer (I use 2 lines for my walls and not all the other layers). It's good for us to have multiple ways to achieve something since there are so many situations and some work better then others depending on the specific situation. But the ability to edit a wall in 3d the same way we would any CAD makes sense or it's 'intuitive'.

The feature request (or magic button) would be the ability to curve the tops of walls...seems like the 'change line/arc' tool would be great here. Select the top of wall, 'change line/arc' and edit as needed. Nice and quick...faster then polyline solid in this case.

I usually do that out of polyline solids. Bill's curved roof cap idea is good to. Definitely needs to be a feature in chief.

Running into similar issues as well...much more temperamental then before. In fact I opened up a plan in Chief 9 the other day and it was so simple and smooth. Not as many options, but it worked as you would expect it to.

Pretty good work around. I guess the biggest issue I see besides potential image quality, and the extra time is the ability to edit the elevation of stray lines. Would still be great to have it built into the vector views automatically without workarounds.

Like Glenn, shadows in vector elevations that I can save and notate are at the top of my feature list as well. Many of the examples shown are nice, but they are not vector elevations that can be sent to layout at a scale, with notations. There are ways to get it to work but it rasterizes the elevation into an image and doesn't allow for scaling or editing. Dark windows via the color of glass chosen or some other better method would also be great.

Is there any indication that this is being fixed in Windows 10? I assume by your comment that this is not an issue with Macs and transparency printing straight to 3rd party printers blends as expected?

More information and better resolution on this topic found at this thread: https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/5189-pdf-anomaly/

Yeah, they were aware of it before via my previous post on this found here: https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/3893-x7-poor-print-quality-using-transparent-fills-in-walls/ I also reported it to tech support at the same time as that post, but glad to see another post on it to help them understand the urgency. In fact I'll link these posts to that other in case people search. Better resolution on this thread. Thanks!

FYI follow up. When I have transparency in the plan I print using Chief's pdf printer, then when the adobe file pops up, i then print that to my 3rd party printer that I prefer due to features etc. And it works fine there since the transparency has already been processed. If no transparency, then I bi pass Chief printer and use the 3rd party. Hope that helps someone. BTW, why is 'print in color' checked by default now with latest update. Very annoying. I rarely print in color. Even if I uncheck, it doesn't retain that preference and I have to uncheck everytime. This is from plan view and seems to work fine printing from layout.

Yes, i get that too with pdfs: both the slowness and the blank/white areas.

Yes, I've noticed that to, but I've had inconsistent results. One computer gave me 10mb and the same file on another computer gave me 2mb. Never figured that one out. On a different note: I can't remember if using the 'reduce file size' feature in adobe will bring the larger file size down or not....worth a try.

Excellent explanation Dough, thank you! Back to the original post, I assume transparency is his issue as well, but until he confirms, not sure.

I'm attaching a crude chief file and a pdf with notes that demonstrates what I have found that others can play with if interested....curious to see if others get the same results as me or not. Could help narrow down the issue to local or global. transparent test-Floor Plan.pdf transparent test.plan

No, if you zoom in that close on the portions outside the box, they are not pixelated, it is only pixelated in the areas within the box...and it results in poor print quality. When you want to do printing on letter size paper, it is even worse.

Yes, I think I know what is causing it.....seee my previous post...i'm pasting it below: I'll see if I can track down a file I created to send to Chief to demonstrate this. Still waiting for an answer from 'jtcapa1' (no name) to see if it is the same issue.

I took the liberty of marking it up SheetA7_Roof_Framing (1).pdf