VHampton

Agreed that it's not quite clear on the issue. That said... Toolbars can inexplicably "lose" certain tools. Particularly with X-15. A factory reset solve issues, provided that loss of any customization isn't a concern. The switch method however (to a backup) ensures that a personalized setting won't be lost.

Please excuse... meant to give a more detailed reply. The toolbar which seems to have gone amiss is your layout toolbar. The back up is there. A good sign. With the Layout page open, right click on the toolbar and select the Customize Toolbars option. When that dialogue box opens, go to Configurations. There you will find the option to Switch To the back up. If the Extended Tool Configuration Backup is working as it should, that's a great sign. You'll be back in business. Make a copy of it so that if this happens again, you'll have another spare. The one which went haywire can be removed. Here's how to switch as well as examples of multiple backups... Hope it works out.

Check the toolbars. Toggle to another one and see if those missing icons come back. If they do reappear... then the default toolbar lost a few tools. Suggestion... do you have a back up of the Chief X-15 data files? Or go straight to that folder (usually stored in your Document Files) Look for the back up toolbar, and see if you can switch out the wonky tool bar with the archived version. That could fix the glitch.

Last observation... and in total agreement with John. Main Layer is typically the way to calculate living space, less the stair holes. Living area is typically (frame to frame) in most municipalities. In other words, concrete to concrete dimensions. The plan should be set to Main Layer "Building Coverage" is the frame + the plywood and shingles. The inclusion of 1/2" plywood + 3/4" of siding (or shingles) will skew the Living area, but it's accurate in terms of "lot coverage". This equals Surface Layer. ecode is a nationwide standard in almost every building department. There may be zoning restrictions being applied towards the house size in relationship to the lot size. For example... The intent of GFA (gross floor area) regulations is to reduce mass and scale. A half acre parcel may not be suitable for a 4,000 square foot house because it could be in conflict with "character of the neighborhood". The local zoning may involve a formula where you can only have 3,000 sq feet. Small details like this are often crucial to be aware of depending on where you're working. In addition, in some municipalities, they may or may not count double height spaces. If they do, they might only count ceilings only greater than 15 feet in height. This is why that Main Layer tab is essential. When in doubt... concrete to concrete poly-lines as John shared is the best answer.

Thanks Doug. Chief Architect is certainly capable of building just about anything. And you’re welcome LD. That’s quite interesting about your project, because that’s exactly the timeframe when those slanted glass walls were quite popular. The TWA terminal at JFK airport is not too far away. (From the Worlds Fairgrounds that is.) The architecture at that time was incredibly cutting edge, and influenced many trends. …This is still probably one the coolest building ever. Anyway, glad to have been of help. I can’t think of any other way to achieve the result with the exception of 3D solids …which would still be kind of tricky, since the facets are hard to make and join for a tilted wall section. Maybe when the Z versions come out, they’ll have a tilted wall option available. …All the best!

Chief doesn't draw sloped walls... however Chief can draw roof planes. Suggestion... Draw an exterior wall and make it invisible. Draw the roof planes with a very steep negative pitch. Add skylights to the steep roof sections for the "windows". Use a 3D molding poly-line for the sill. After the first roof plane is created, the process should be easy. Edit... The attached plan file may be of help. (2) roof slope options. (-77 in 12) as well as a positive slope (33 in 12). It's a start... The roof structure can be made thicker as necessary, but the general concept is there. Untitled 1.plan

For the initial post... In terms of missing toolbars, usually closing the program will reset the header field. Making a clone of the factory toolbar can help in case it goes wonky again. Just change the tool bar to the "copy" version. My recommendation... Do a clean reinstall of X-16, and keep any virus protection turned off while doing so. The program should be more stable. Typically Beta releases will have unknown quirks, but they will settle down in due time as more official releases are provided. As a general rule, it's best to wait until all the growing pains have been resolved before diving in, unless it's a small project. That said, being a pioneer sometimes has its risks, but the initial users invariably help bring about the solutions to these various issues. On a positive note, many have reported good results with this beta release. Keep the faith. and keep posting if you've found a resolve to the issue. Been there and done that as they say (with over 25 versions)... The clean reinstall often solves the random issues. All the best.

Geometric shapes. There's a tapered base just like that. The house that you're working has some close relatives in the samples galleries, but the bases aren't tapered. It's a common detail in Craftsman Style architecture. You may want to take a visit there as well... just to see the details etc. Good stuff. https://www.chiefarchitect.com/products/samples.html

8" of concrete block or an 8" thick PC wall may offer some semblance of load bearing in addition to the ledger. Existing garage walls might be 2 x 6 or even better yet, 2 x 4... and that'll provide room for a small knee wall or at the very least, vertical 2x's on the flat to add reinforcement to the ledger. For what it's worth, clear spanning that room w/ TJI's is still going to involve some bouncy floors despite manufacturer's recommendations. A small knee wall down the middle should be a must have even if the slab has a crack. Option 2... On at least (2) sides of that garage, they could always cut the sheetrock off, and use the foundation for load bearing. (see link). That method provides better ceiling height if they don't mind the floor being lower from the main house elevation. Even if you still had to keep two treads. In looking at the door height, the ceiling is low. Based on the model... the current windows already look lower. A raised floor may result in the sills being right at the base board. Perhaps there's a happy medium. https://www.contractortalk.com/threads/garage-to-living-room-conversion.117918/#lg=thread-117918&slide=1

...now that's the way it's done, w/ the structure tab and inputs. Excellent job.

Excellent suggestion by Larry. OPTION B & C... Use a flat roof with wood flooring as the roof surface OR manual ceiling planes. Both will appear as new wood framing in cross section views (which is how the real world condition will ultimately look). Altering the structure tabs would have boosted the foundation wall height, and that's not going to be how it's constructed.

Room definition on the 2nd floor can often be the culprit. If there may be a 2nd floor space which is driving down the height of first floor walls... Check the 2nd floor structure tab and see if the floor system is going by the floor default. Example 2 x 10's vs 2 x 12's will force the 1st floor to have a lower top plate. Your project appears to be a one story home however.

BTW Melissa... I removed my reply because it didn't appear to be the answer you were looking for, even though Mark made an excellent observation. Having said that, everyone on the forum is like a good neighbor, and we're all here to be of help. As an architect with a civil engineering background, I will often provide structural and code related observations for example. Most importantly, I was definitely not the one who down-voted your post. (I personally really dislike that feature). Perhaps a member of the community reacted, since everyone here works with the spirit of cooperation. Again, if by chance the architect whom you're working with may want to know more about the codes, the link below goes through the same scenario. He may even thank you for it. What's being shown is in violation of IRC code which is a nation-wide standard. Kindest regards, and for what it's worth, great job with your design! All the best! https://www.houzz.com/discussions/4894085/gas-range-too-close-to-wall https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IRC2015/chapter-24-fuel-gas

Agreed. Make a second floor and call it balcony or unspecified.

The glass material appears to be correct. Vector views will never be see-through unless opacity is unchecked. Question... have you tried looking at an archived plan file? That's typically the best place to look when figuring out why something is behaving differently. Open up a saved plan and if the glass is see-through. If so, then recalibrate the current plan accordingly.

Looks as if you could (should) begin with (2) roof planes. Each roof plane can be started out as a 12 in 12 pitch coming off of the first floor. Curve them as needed, and the rest looks like it should be smooth sailing.

Check the glass properties. Click on the glass with the rainbow icon. The material should be set for transparent glass. Crown glass is the default. Glass will always be transparent in standard views... but for vector (line drawings) you'll have to toggle the rendering technique.

What Michael posted is spot on. The stairs are too narrow. Move the stringer over and that'll get that exterior rail to appear inside the opening. Observation... Even when the railing gets resolved, those stairs may need winders at the platform if they get scrunched into the current opening. 1.) Can you make the stair hole longer? Right now it looks as if a few treads are being buried inside the floor framing. 2.) Can the wood post be moved so that it serves as the newel? That would look pretty good. The landing rail could die into it the repositioned post like it does on the far end.

Interior wall of the porch (patio or balcony)? or the interior of the house? Per Tea Time... per IRC regulations, exterior spaces are required to have ground fault circuit interrupters - for the receptacles. The program has a default to ensure compliance. ...which is actually really good. Regarding the OP's inquiry, the room classification is most likely telling the program that there may be presence of water in that space. That's why outlets are coming up as GFI's. Change the room name, but more importantly, the room type.

Thank you Doug. Please excuse the delay in getting back. Your post was greatly appreciated. This is going to be a huge help in the future. The project which I started the thread with got the ok by the municipality, but your precision script is all the better particularly since it hones in on the exact glazing. Much appreciated! - Val

Thank you Mr. T! In terms of SH Canada's comment... It's a mystery. Below is a theory, but 100% plausible. In toggling back and forth between an "Architectural" plan w/ room labels vs. the "Structural" plan w/ no room labels ... The toggling between the layer set of "no room labels" may be causing the glitch where Living Area appears and then disappears. When Living Area goes missing... so do ALL of the room names in the layer set where they had previously existed. Living Area happens to be under the layer (of all things) "Room labels". Placing Living Area under a new dedicated layer seems to have resolved the disappearing issue.

As an observation... I may have found the glitch. Initially I thought that it was the result of bring an X-14 plan into X-15. Not so. This occurrence happens on "out of the box" brand spanking new plan files. So... if by chance you may delete "Living Area" there appears to be a direct correlation to losing not some but ALL of the room labels. Thankfully it's become easier to rectify by holding the shift key after selecting one room. Then you can click, click, click and get every room to highlight. Turn on room labels all at once with the opened dialogue box for that one room. Anyway... lesson learned is not to delete the Living Area. This has happened far more times than it should have. Ideally X-16 will have corrected this bug.

Indeed. It's quite similar. That's the (4) sided flitch plate ridge beam which carries the cupola. They furred-out the load bearing cupola walls with an interior thickness. This is probably what your engineer will do. Meaning to place the cupola over the structural ridges. Then you can frame down the shaft much lower as per your rendering (just as they did in the photo). Trusses will also eliminate the need for the steel over the bar stools. There will still be a beam, but now there's only "dummy" rafters (sloped interior ceiling framing) which will not be presenting tons of weight. (A glue-lam could probably do all of the work in carrying the sloped ceiling). Good luck with the project!

Architect w/ civil engineering background, but don't take my post as anything other than general observations. Your design is do-able in any number of ways, and ultimately the engineer will decide. For example... They could opt to use a four sided ridge at the base of the oversized cupola. This would allow the upper "cupola" walls to bear down onto the 4 rectangular interlocking ridge beams which would spread the load onto the structural hips. Very much like Michael has shown, and as others have suggested. The use of collar ties as shown in Michael's cross section would help support the ridge by means of posts. The bottom line is that there are always many ways to approach a structural solution. If truss manufacturing is local to your area, then by all means consider that as a possible cost savings method. All the best!

Flitch plates bolted inside micro-lams can address the roof. They can weld a moment connect at the ridge. They'll do the same welds at the base of the longer walls. The rafters by the Kitchen have no bearing wall. They'll need a W section to handle the gravity loads (posted on both ends). There's enough height however to get a tall beam in there. Engineer will probably size something 14 inches tall and at least 100 lbs per foot. By the way, even if the vaulted area gets collar tied (which it should) steel over the bar stools is a must have.