VHampton

Thank you for the kind words. Modern has become more of a trend these days, and it's always good to have some diversity. My findings on shallow (or flat roofing) however, is that the snow loading requires the structure to be in the I joist variety - or as in Alan's project, some kind of truss work. In colder climate regions, there's almost no way around not using engineered lumber unless there were some steel involved to reduce the spans. To that end, we always use TJI's in the floors to avoid any kind of shrinkage or reverberation (Jurassic Park effect). There's nothing's worse than seeing a cup of water jiggle when someone steps across a room - particularly in a new home. ...Per the attached progress image, the only Douglas fir that we use is in the wall framing. BTW... I was looking at your elevations Gene, and the rakes could definitely be made more delicate (if you wanted them to) by simply keeping the rafters tight to the siding. With this approach, the rake flyers and sub-fascia can be done with conventional material (like 2 x 6's). Then the finished trim won't become excessively bulk if you'd like to steer away from that appearance. If gable end overhangs need to remain heavy however, then the appearance can always be softened by using different trim colors. My guess is that 9 times out of 10, the roof framing is going to overhang beyond the outside wall - just as you have it shown - and therefore, it's inevitable that the fascias and rakes are going to be a tad heavier. That's a very nice design by the way. If you do a search on "skillion" roof styles there are many examples.

I joists for the roof framing - with a dropped ceiling (for HVAC) What we typically use is anywhere from 14" to 16" flat roof joists with a minimum of a 2 x 6 depth for the interior "drop" The ideal flat roof aesthetic is when the exterior flows into the finished space - and to Alan's point it does indeed appear like a continuous slab. In the image of the first post... that sloped roof appear to have a rather large rake - which would probably be made from a Versatek or Azek material - if not a build up of T & G siding.

Glad to be of help. My logo is likewise colored, and similarly, I like to keep all the image files colored as well... even though they can be set to b &w. On a side... Any viewport (on a layout page) can be toggled as color on or color off. I could be wrong but it appears from the quoted text that maybe you wish to have grey scale on certain pages, and color on others? If you click on a view port (when in layout), the dialogue box will appear. That's where you can control each layout sheet individually. Hope this helps... and all the best in gaining more perspective with the program.

can you place a window? If so, then that could solve. A poly-line skin on the outside wall can cover the opening.

That is strange. Colors should stay put. The default toolbar has a toggle on the far right - for color on & off. But still... that shouldn't be happening randomly in both plan and layout. As an experiment, what happens if you click on the image file, hold the shift key, and then make it into a CAD block? Maybe that will prevent the color from changing.

That may very well be a screen capture. Coincidentally, I had just responded to Joe about a CAD resource for roof ventilation... The same web page - ARCAT - has wall details (for Stucco) in CAD in case that's of any interest. https://www.arcat.com/product/Building-Envelope-Insulation--154615

ARCAT is web site which has a compilation of many brand name vendors from all the various divisions of construction. It's a helpful source for product details (in CAD): https://www.arcat.com/products/building_products_categories.shtml These came up in roof vent categories: https://www.arcat.com/manufacturers/rafter_vents https://www.arcat.com/product/durovent-baffle-170969

Really nice work Alan. I cant't help with the PBR question though. ...Have you tried changing the glass setting? Maybe to a different type of glass? The refraction in that rendered view is probably true to the real world to some extent, since glass will act like a mirror when it's got something very close behind it. Observation... The darker tone is showing up in the edges as it would with real glass. Aside from exploring another glass type/setting, how about making one of the sample sections paper thin - like 1/8th of an inch. Maybe you'll pick up a bit more transparency? Again, I have no absolutely idea, but it can't hurt to try.

The program can build the top rail if you want. ...but as far as glass coming past the treads & stringers ...and the metal stand-offs... it's poly-line solid time.

That works. Obviously the program isn't quite set up to build more than one level below Floor 1, but it's possible The method in the plan which had been attached was set up so that the ground floor is still on Level 1 in Chief.

Yep. I see the frustration. It is possible to build a first floor as a Pony Wall. By lowering the first floor elevation, that will allow a lower elevation for the floor framing. No walls on the foundation level, even though the cross section shows otherwise. Untitled .plan

Code in CA seems to suggest that frost heave may occur. When basement foundation walls are warm, vapor build-ups. Extreme cold = Freeze = heave-ho. Interesting. code

Very interesting. I've watched many episodes of Holmes on Homes and I believe they had a project like that. ...anyway, it looks like you may have a great solution thanks to Ryan.

A landing could be used over the slab. Why anyone would want to build a basement without a slab however is curious. The thermal break between the heated basement space and cooler soil temperature will create vapor. It's a recipe for dampness, then mold, and possibly rot, unless the framing is treated. Edit... unless this is an elevated floor which has no direct contact with the soil - and with fresh air flowing below the framing. My guess is yes based on your cross section. ...and yes - Ryan's observation on the stairs is absolutely correct. Edge of tread (nosing) to any overhead surface. 80" is the minimum allowed by IRC regulation.

You're very welcome Larry. I took the plan apart so that you could grab the p-line solids only. ...check your message box... the entire plan file was just sent.

Poly-line solids. (1) for the deck surface (1) for the deck thickness (1) for the solid rail walls. One thing I noted Larry... the real world deck is higher than the first floor roof (as compared to your model). When I first explored the balcony (based on the size in your plan), it's wider, and therefore it won't appear similar to the as-built photo... So for the sake of making it appear like the reference image, the lower hip roof was dropped, and the roof deck was made narrower. Anyway, those ingredients in the attached plan will get the job done. The ability to use boolean tools with solids is incredibly helpful. You can shape-shift them however necessary to match that condition precisely. 460680887_roofdeeck1.plan

learn something new everyday Joe. ...I mean Yoda. lol When they used to give out the manuals - mine got used as paperweights. I'm a self taught Jedi master.

This works every time. What is meant by this, is that the stair stringer on an L shape (which is open to a room) will sometimes become extra wide, for no apparent reason. Placing an invisible wall against the stringer can stop the width from increasing. ...and if the intent was to have a starter tread with a turn-out on one side only, the invisible wall method reins the unwanted "flare" on the straight section.

You could either change the default ceiling height on your plan (and lower it)... which will fix the way the rafters intrude into the room, and then the splay disappears. Or ...take a 3d view of the model, click on every roof (open the dialogue box) and raise them all - by plugging in a greater input on the z axis. It looks like a 2 to 2-1/2" offset. The rafter depth is affecting how the roof is "birds-mouthing" over the top plate. It's an easy fix... but definitely frustrating when learning. Hang in there... it'll work out. ...and as an FYI, you'll probably get a request in the future about posting computer specs. etc. in your signature. There are many good people here who like to help. Invariably the hardware spec.s as well as which version allows them some perspective in being able to provide a solution.

This thread may be of interest... Un-do re-do settings in Chief are often set to 50 by default. Not saying that this is the problem with what the OP described... but any large plan file (with many 3d objects) will move much faster and without lag if you don't mind working with a smaller safety net - meaning only a couple of undos instead of 50. Before computers came with massive amounts of memory, the culprit to lag time was often the amount of undo/redo's which one had set the preferences to. A small cottage would be negligible in terms of how much lag would be apparent, but a large project is a different story.

On a side... the Clay rendering technique is a wonderful preliminary view tool in that it provides the design concept in such a clean manner. Per the original poster's intent (in providing the client with some spatial relationships only) this could be a good approach. There's no need for detail, and better yet, it pretty much shuts the door on them being able to play architect. Wondering if making a clay view and then exporting that as a symbol would work. Then open a new plan and export the model to the Chief viewer? If all else fails, you make quick movie file and upload it to YouTube or Vimeo. It tells whole story and they can freeze frame when necessary. Per my initial suggestion... in retrospect, that's not a really great idea (to suggest that they download the trial version), Even though it would work, most younger clients grew up playing video games and things of that nature. Their perceived expertise can often entitle them to want to join in as co-designer which can prove to be quite an undesirable experience.

The Trial Version will open a model. Unfortunately this is a slippery slope. Giving a client the model could only be likened to handing the keys to the car to a ten year old. They'll start asking for changes, and ultimately, it's better to keep the work methodology a mystery. Option A... If they're only interested in the exterior, what you could do is take an archived plan. Do a "Shift select" and delete every interior wall and object on each floor. That would greatly reduce the model for an upload to the viewer. Option B... -Have you tried exporting your project as a 3ds or .dae model only? -Or perhaps even converting the entire house into a symbol? ...then you could open a new plan file, import the model (or symbol), and try uploading that to the 3D viewer. This may or may not greatly reduce the file size for the client viewer, but it's possibly worth a try.

You're a genius Eric. Thank you!

One day hopefully... If Chief can show doors w/ swings (in plan), then windows should be no problem. Regarding the solution, like others have posted, both methods work. Meaning using doors as casement windows. That said, the CAD block method works just as well (to show swings) The only minor issue with the door method (and calling doors casements) is that it'll mess with the window schedule.