robdyck

Thanks for your reply Doug! This is where our codes differ. The ABC does not (yet) have this statement. You were able to provide a much better explanation than the local building official I talked with. And to reiterate, I wasn't challenging the use of the closure but rather I wanted documentation to support the use.

1 hour ago, Doug_N said:

(4) Except as provided in Sentence (5), openings in a wall having a limiting distance of less than 1.2 m shall be protected by closures , of other than wired glass or glass block, whose fire-protection rating is in conformance with the fire-resistance rating required for the wall.

I'm curious about the use of this Doug. I ran into a similar issue on a recent project where the building inspector asked for fire shutters on bedroom windows. The inspector indicated that because the house was a certain distance from the property line, he wanted fire shutters installed to protect our house from a potential fire at the adjacent property. 

I challenged him on this. The building code clearly indicates that in residential applications, our responsibility when building within a certain proximity to the property line is to limit the spread of fire from OUR HOUSE to other properties, not the other way around. 

SO, if our proposed house is on fire, how does the fire shutter with a fusible link know the difference between fire from outside or fire from inside? 

Especially in the case of a bedroom! Couldn't a fire shutter trap an occupant in the bedroom by closing off the only available means of egress due to a fire from inside?

Currently I'm not aware of any product literature that addresses this but if you have some information to pass on I'd appreciate it!

1 hour ago, mattivester said:

Any ideas why soffits won't meet up at gable/hip transitions?

These have never worked correctly. The soffit plane follows the line of their roof plane. In order for the soffits to correctly join, a roof plane would need to be able to generate more than one soffit plane per eave.

3 hours ago, ACADuser said:

What is the best method to create a ceiling with a header wall and not break up the room definition?

I'm not going to claim I've got the best method, but for simple rectangular items like this, I'll use a beam. Obviously I place it on an appropriate layer and adjust the schedule reporting if needed. The reason is simple. You can edit a beam or other framing member in section view!!

Often an actual beam needs to be wrapped. This is easily accomplished in section view by copying (pick your method) and then it's dimensions can be dragged / tabbed or adjusted through the dialog.

If I needed a more complex profile, I would use a molding line / polyline.

I believe starting with 6'-7" would just make more sense! 

Uncheck Reduce Fractions just for this dimension line. Don't do it for the dimension defaults!

The cushioned segments in the photo aren't cylinders so I tried to make something closer to what was depicted. This was simply an experiment in doing something that I don't know how to do! Here's the result. These 3d solids ground my computer to a halt even though there are only 200k surfaces.

I've also included the 3d solid as a library item. I believe it works better if it is converted to a different type of symbol before distributing on a polyline or placing in plan view.

Use at your own risk!

cushion.calibz

8 hours ago, SHCanada2 said:

I suppose the note method would also guarantee the wall number in the cross section matches, where if using text boxes there would be a possibility of putting a W2 label on a wall in the cross section, and then the text box actually has W1. But my guess is, there is always the same numbering, W1 for above grade W2 for below grade, W3 for garage etc..

I'd be all over finding a way that eliminates the potential for error! I haven't found a fool proof system yet.  Using notes or text macros ensure accuracy of the note but placement of the note is still in the users hands. I found that repetition and my memory of my system were about the most accurate I can get. I haven't found a really good, reliable and fast method to tag walls in section view to coordinate with an assembly schedule using any tool that coordinate with a Chief Schedule. I

I can think of some really good ways that this could be programmed, but currently the simplest IMO is a cad block of callouts and an assembly labeling system that is as repetitive as possible.

In the image below, I used the emissive technique on the right. On the left, I used an Added Light placed behind the symbol. I only used 1 just to save time.

This is a physically based rendering.

You could copy the map symbol so that you can place it directly behind the map symbol (which you probably want to have offset from the wall so it appears to be floating). Assign it a new material and make the new material 'emissive'. You may need to play with the amount of emissivity depending on your rendering technique.

This is what I'd try first.

This model has a ridiculous high poly count!

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/ad35e567-9329-4e8d-81af-36b8965330f4/Luminária-High-Bay-Ufo-Avant

From Help:

• Select Calculate From Width to use the program defaults. Hinged and pocket doors default to Single Door when less than four feet (1200 mm) wide; bifold doors do so when less than three feet (900 mm) wide. If the width is greater than this, Double Door is the default.

1 minute ago, SHCanada2 said:

once you get to a tall wall, arent you going to need the RSI of the cladding to make the requirement?

Not an issue if the tall wall is 2X8. If 2x6 then a bit trickier depending on climate zone. No problem in zone 6. 

1 minute ago, SHCanada2 said:

yeah thats why I dont do it for whole houses.

Maybe you misunderstood me. No area calcs are needed for a prescriptive method. If you ever feel like chatting about this or other things let me know. I love talking about Chief and home design and all that stuff.

In the example I posted, the exterior wall doesn't reference a cladding type. This simplifies my labelling process and and keeps me from needing to identifying walls based on cladding. I can save exterior finish callouts / notes for exterior elevations.

37 minutes ago, SHCanada2 said:

I tend to do tradeoff because you can easily add insulation to the attic, and R22 /24 is considerably more money than R20. R24 is like double the price. That being said  I also rarely do full houses to the level of calculating the efficiency. And computing all the areas is a pain,

No area calculations are needed for the prescriptive method. No trade offs are needed. All you need is assemblies that meet the criteria. It's a one and done process! Takes no time at all.

If you wanted to quickly follow the CWC calculator, you can copy/paste the text from various walls into a spreadsheet. The text formatting goes with it! Also, you can copy the image generated for the wall if you wanted to include a visual detail as well. 

8 minutes ago, SHCanada2 said:

Are yours predetermined text boxes grouped as a CAD object and then you just have all of them on a single layout sheet? or how are you managing the changing stud spacing, insulation, and cladding?

Yes. I have a few groups of assemblies saved for the most common applications , like a builder's preferences for example. This keeps my naming convention (code like 'W1 or W2) as close to the same as possible across various plan sets and climate zones. The section view callouts can be saved in a block for quick reference.

I also show the RSI and R values because really, who knows RSI values? It's like asking someone how tall they are in meters. So including the R values makes it easier for trades.

About 9 years ago I created a fairly comprehensive spread sheet to do all the calculations for the most frequently used assemblies. Then I could just copy/paste rows to create new assemblies. I used that to create the text boxes. I found it faster to manage my assemblies with text boxes and callouts manually when compared to managing the macros (and I don't speak Ruby). But even text macros to do wholesale changes was a PITA. 

Most of my clients prefer the prescriptive method because it's cheaper and shh... it takes no effort on my part. 

As for the cost difference between R22 and R20 fiberglass batts: where I live R22 is $1.40 / sq ft and R20 is $1.25 / sq ft.   Yes, R24 is a lot more, and usually only needed in climate zone 7B. For most homes the R22 will only cost about $180 more. And in most climate zones, you'll only need R22 in the exterior walls, not the garage-to-house wall or the basement frost walls.

I always tell people that they are better off to spend an extra $200 for more insulation instead of $800 on some sheets of paper (energy advisor fee) that prove they don't need the insulation. 

Go the layout file. Turn on Layout Box Borders. Starting on page 1, look for empty layout boxes. Delete or relink them.

Hi Jason, I'm curious as to how you're applying this into your plan set and what the benefits are. I only use text boxes with the data derived from my spreadsheets.

I take it you're using a prescriptive method for that project. Is that normal for you and your clients? Prescriptive is my go-to method.

If Brett's suggestion doesn't give you enough control, then create a molding polyline using the 'Make Room Molding Polyline' tool. Single click the room and the tool will be available.

17 hours ago, BenPalmer said:

However, like all features...if someone doesn't like it, they don't have to use it, but they shouldn't keep a feature from being developed because someone doesn't want it or like the way it is implemented.

Very true! I concede that point! Just to reiterate that I've allowed the developers some freedom

17 hours ago, robdyck said:

unless it can be proven to be instant and perfect.

47 minutes ago, BenPalmer said:

.automation would eliminate this potential error.

Multi-pitch roofs would no doubt pose a problem. I envision Chief producing a tool that automatically produces these and then having to delete surfaces in order to find a specific roof planes label that is showing up when it shouldn't be. I would fully expect that cleaning up automated pitch markers would take 50 times longer than using a library cad block.

I would discourage Chief from working on this unless it can be proven to be instant and perfect. I think it goes without saying that programmed automation is fantastic and works really well for simple to mildly complex buildings. Beyond that, it's usually best if the designer isn't afraid to grab the steering wheel.

I'll stick to using the roof labels for preliminary elevation views / reference and my pitch markers for final drawings.

21 minutes ago, DBCooper said:

OK, so I finally figured out what was going on here.  Your plan has 3 different concrete materials that are all named the same.  If your stem wall and your slab are using different materials, they will show these extra lines.  Just open up your "plan materials" dialog and merge the 3 concrete materials into one and your extra lines will go away

Always nice when the fix is quick, right?!