robdyck

a bit more context

Thanks for the tip Mick. Just for practice I gave it a shot. Here's what I did and the results: I copied the existing roof plane created a small room under it changed it's lookout dimensions to 3.5x1.5 (flatwise) changed the structure depth to 1.5" replicated it in the z-axis in order to raise the framing layer above the ACTUAL sheathing layer. built framing deleted the temporary room moved the framing only roof plane back into its original position moved 1 lookout into the correct location on the x-axis only framing result: it worked! the correct lookout is visible because of the correct grain direction. The incorrect lookouts are 'fixtures' The roof plane that represents the sleepers does cut the attic wall which I was able to correct with 2 clicks in the roof dbx I'm pleased with this because it's much more accurate as a model of the addition. The existing roof plane would remain in place, and the new roof plane will be on top of it. So this makes more sense than 'joining' the new roof to the old roof. Of course, they are joined...I'm just using 2 roof planes for the existing roof.

Thanks! I did make it...modeled after a one of the most widely used products whose name escapes me now. I'll post it on Monday although I may need a reminder!

Interestingly enough I just finished a job today that required 2x4 sleepers on an existing roof in order to support an over frame from an addition. Lookouts was my first thought but I couldn't control the pitch (the new roof was a 3in12 over an existing 9in12). I couldn't believe how difficult it was to try to get a framing member to lay flat on a roof. I gave up, used a solid converted to a fixture so it would populate in the material list and model. Same thing for bottom chord truss bracing on a vaulted ceiling. https://3d-viewer.chiefarchitect.com/go?share=265245076150206

Pretty tough to design a remodel roof when the as-built isn't correct... https://www.har.com/homedetail/29208-dove-ln-katy-tx-77493/9878636?sid=4437613

Yup. Been there. I also have a nice screen symbol if you'd like for your screened porch. It's a fixture so you've got layer control and you can 'pull' the shades open or closed as much as you'd like for various views.

Seems like additional layers would also help. While it might not be ideal to have interior doors or interior walls, etc, on their own layer that would also solve the label issues as indicated by the OP. Side benefit: It can also speed up Chief when working in an elevation view by reducing the number of surfaces being modeled.

So...too early on the Great Success gif??

Awesome!

This video is closer to what @ChiefuserMathews is trying to accomplish: Polyline Subtraction2.mp4

Polyline Subtraction.mp4

Just select the 'invisible' line style for the polyline. It should be the 6th choice from the top of the drop down menu

Then you're doing it wrong. The inner polyline will inherit the line style settings of the outer line.

have both polylines created. click on outer polyline. select Polyline Subtraction tool. (look for it click inner polyline

Yes. Just use a polyline with the invisible line style...should be the 6th choice from the top. It's hard to see....because its invisible.

Never use that POS. Make your own room divider wall, give it a single layer of 1/2" thickness. I have a few...example: one that has drywall as its layer, one that has opening (no material) as its layer. These will not revert to a different wall type and they are simple to control. Very helpful for connecting to the drywall layer of a typical interior wall.

I've created trusses for a project, for which I need to clearly communicate how the new trusses will interact with the existing roof. No problem with that, however, a new problem exists in X12. Parts of the truss polyline 'jumps' to a new location, slightly off of where it was created. Anyone else experienced this? I'll send it in to tech support. In the screenshot, the truss was created tight to the sheathing and fascia...

It ain't gonna happen, David! The only way to do that out of a framing member is to use a truss polyline and then edit the truss members in the truss detail.

@LevisL None of my business but you're pretty skinny on headroom...I've got the railing set to 1.95 m in this image.

Use different wall types for the different railings. Make a copy, name it so its easily recognizable and maybe change the fill pattern so they're easily distinguishable in plan view. That will take care of the connection issues.

Don't forget about the undo button after those!

Alt codes don't work, from google docs doesn't work, nothing seems to work, however you can use the transform/replicate tool to increase its size, but any change to the text within the text dialog box undoes the superscript format.

Keep in mind that if you have a structure layer for the floor joists in your deck room dbx, the deck may (will) auto-frame at some point and you'll lose your manual edits. I know I'll hear that Chief can't do that if auto-frame is off but I've experienced that way too many times (yes, when it's off). All it takes is to move a railing wall that defines the deck and it'll jump back to auto-frame. So if you're using the modeled framing for plan or section views...be careful.

I have a library of pier/footing combinations for regions of different frost depths, varying sizes for builder preferences and/or loads, and I've converted them to fixtures, set the elevation to terrain, set the layer, set the label, set the schedule parameters. Then, all I have to do is drop them onto the post centers and everything else is done, except for dimensions in plan view of course.

Not that I know of. But you can make them all the same height and depth relative to the terrain which is adequate for any drawing. For instance, in my region, cylindrical piers on footings must have the bottom at least 5'-0" below grade for frost coverage, and the top at least 6" above grade. So I end up with a 4'6" cylindrical pier on a 10" footing, set to the terrain as mentioned and they are always the right height...however the deck posts will not 'find' those foundation elements on their own.