johnny

Thank you sir!!.

Glenn had shared with me a dimension setting that is commonly used in Europe and Australia which keeps the extension line separated by a certain distance from the object being dimensioned. I cannot find the controlling entry point to define that distance. Does anyone know where to look? I had thought i knew but when I change that number isn't not changing my setting. Thanks in advance.

I think if you have multiple buildings symbols are best.

Draft-stopping and fire-stopping are slightly different things but often get confused since they are so similar. Firestopping is to actually restore fire-rating for separated spaces or prevent a fire from spreading - Draftstopping is choke a fire's air supply by making it difficult/impossible for it to pull air from an adjoining space. I believe Scott is referring to draft-stopping, although his very first post he does say "fire block".

Scott - i do not think you need the draft-stops by code. I suppose the inspector is defining the roof space as floor??? There is a good chance the inspector is making a mistake (happens all the time) but i've come to realize those fights can go bad places.

Where are you relating having an attic access with not needing draft-stops? Id like to see where you are reading that. Unless there is something specific in the CA code the IRC states: R302.12 Draftstopping. In combustible construction where there is usable space both above and below the concealed space of a floor/ceiling assembly, draftstops shall be installed....

Here is another good section on this. http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/st/ny/st/b200v10/st_ny_st_b200v10_7_sec017.htm

Do you have a section of the mansard roof detail by chance? Often rim/sole plates and blocking "naturally" create draftstopping. Is there a living space above your mansard roof? That would be a major pre-requisite to be required, not to mention that is why I recommended calling it a cornice (since there is an exception for that too). (R302.12) Can you show me what the condition looks like?

If you label the mansard roof as a cornice you may be fine without....though its fire-blocking is so easy to fulfill. If the inspector is asking for it then re-labeling to cornice may not work.

You know you didn't post plan...?

Sure I would recommend CA for remodels. I've used other BIM apps and the process isn't all that much different in Chief. I won't lie though, there is a huge learning curve for Chief as they've decided not to create much familiarity with other apps. Their 2d tools (and 3d generic shape tools) aren't very good in my opinion - and I am talking beyond the basics. The power of Chief is in its 3D specialty tools that makes otherwise complex model elements easy.

Its easy in Chief to show existing walls in 2D - but its not as easy to try and get 3D representations of both. Practically speaking I dont see how that would be a good thing anyways. Draw your as-built condition first, then you can make a CAD detail from view - block it, and then bring it into a new plan as 2D (line properties how you define) and start to model your "final" condition. The MTO produced by Chief is good IF you take the time to meticulously model everything correctly. I could see this being a more problematic issue with a remodel when you mix new condition with existing.

I agree with this. Chief line weights out-of-the-box are way too thick all over. I go between 2-15 and seems to work well.

Thanks for the vid. Micheal. I guess my comment is that even though you can work with solids "organically", its very hard to shape model in CA using primitive solids with precision. Faces dont have any dimensions, angles, etc....so I suppose you are left to use some amount of guess-work.

Chief is VERY limited in how polysolids work in different views. You cannot even resize a polysolid in many instances. I want Chief to fix this badly....

Although, so you know I made a poly-solid in elevation view, made (two) holes on both "sides" of it and it worked fine. I was curious myself.

If its a hole then why does it matter what side? Can you show what you are trying to do?

In Chief a "deck" is also a "room" - I know that can be confusing. Make sure your "room" elevations etc are correct. That could be your issue.

I've just manually filled those in with slabs or poly-solids before. Not ideal but its quick. I could be wrong, but I think if you set your "basement" level as an actual level then that goes away.

Isn't "nuts" a WW2 reference?

In the terrain dbx under "general" you can set your 1st floor (0') to any corresponding elevation height you have in the model. You will then probably need terrain elevation region or something to control specifically the building pad elevations. Unfortunately, Chief's terrain tools aren't very easy to control in my experience.

Actually, even just pulling the main ridge back and then re-connect fixed the issue.

Joists rarely end/start at room definitions so im not sure how Chief would handle that. From a practicality standpoint you'd have to have either a bearing wall or beam at every single transition - which Chief doesn't currently auto-place (and with good reason).

MC - good question. You are right, a serious limitation to the shelve tool.

Perhaps I am not following what you want....couldn't you create the joist as you normally (auto if you want) would and then select the few joists under a specific room and increase their widths as they sit? I just did a quick test and it worked....