robdyck

I was thinking more along the lines of a quicker method to define all the various rooms in a house. Like quickly dragging the "Room Type" from a pallette. If you multiple select, let's say 3 rooms to be bedrooms, you can't choose their Room Type all at once. If the drop down menu could be something like a floating pallette when you need it, you could just grab and drag (at least that's what I'd envision)!

Is there a method to 'drop-in' room types? If there is I'm embarrassed I don't know about it! It'd be so quick to drag and drop in the various room types after the walls are laid out instead of double clicking each room to open up the dbx to define it.

I had an instance similar to this that required site built glazing within the members of a timber-frame truss. It was at a gable end so I used a custom wall type to represent the glass, and my timber truss was a p-solid that was in the same location as the wall. That way, there were no frames or sashes visible. It is an expensive construction method. The same process could be used to show factory built windows by adding a 3d molding in (elevation or section view) around the spaces of the timber truss to represent the sash, frame, jamb-liner etc. Then, by using a separate layer for those moldings, it's 1 click to show both options.

Interestingly enough, I get opposite results from a 3d molding vs a shadow board and neither miters correctly.

FWIW, I'm in Medicine Hat.

Interesting and helpful to get multiple viewpoints on this. To be honest, I switched because I was running out of space on my layout page and the 2d symbols took up more real estate! So far it's 2 to 1 in favor of the 2d symbol (and I was a bit undecided) so I'll probably revert back.

Can you provide a bit more info on the product you have in mind? Maybe a website, picture or model #?

Valid point. What if the key note symbol is id'd in a legend? Do you or others feel that's clear enough for plan readers? Or just stick with those 2d symbols?

I agree that it's probably not worth the effort depending on the amount of notes in one's schedule and if you're absolutely certain as to how much space is available for your schedule. Here's what I chose to run with: No border, gridlines in grey. I'd like to hear what you or others think of this appearance. Perhaps a topic could be started just to discuss and share styles for things like this.

This seemed like a solution until...the text needs to wrap. The schedule number centers on the text field which makes it difficult to tell what the number is referring to (at least without the grid. I had been hoping this would end up looking more like rich text, but no cigar.

No prob Bob! The macro is inherent in the plan, not something I created. For this particular note schedule, I want it to appear as a simple text list. I have a special note type for framing details that I've added myself. While each note has an "object information" panel, I won't be using any of these for this type of note. That leaves 5 fields available for my use despite the 'goofy' default headings: Code, Comment, Description, Manufacturer, Supplier. I've chosen to use the 'Code" field for the schedule list number just because it's the first in that list. Beside the field, click 'insert:' and select the "Simple Schedule Number" followed immediately by a typed period. My title for the schedule is my just a typed text box, with fill and a border, centered alignment. The schedule itself includes only the "Code" and "Text", no borders, no gridlines. Hope that helps.

Thanks Dermot. I placed that in the "Code" field with a period behind it. Adjusted the schedule to display "code", then "Text" and here's the result. Perfect!

Is there any choice in numbering style for schedule numbers, specifically notes? The schedule numbers them 01, 02, 03... I'd prefer 1. 2. 3. and so on. The default numbering system for notes looks odd IMO and so does including the 2d symbol in the actual schedule.

Exactly what I'm doing. Interestingly enough, this can also lead to user error!. For example, if I edit the framing in a wall detail, and I copy a component, like a plate, and use it where a piece is missing, like the plate below a header of a window, I now have the wrong named piece in the wrong spot! I figured the easiest way to group select is by name. So one must be careful when editing framing to use the correct component. This leads to a suggestion for Chief: I think we should be able to rename these components, and also choose what they are in the dbx. I'd like to be able to add a general framing member and in the dbx specify that it's a header or stud or bridging or backing, etc. Another example is adding a header in a rake wall. You can't trim/extend headers but you can with general framing members.

See above post.

I hear you!. Our building code (Alberta) defers to a generic Engineering detail for walls that exceed 3.6m in height. It gets quite technical and 90% of them are framed wrong. Also, on this project, the generic details don't apply due to some of the conditions exceeding the scope of the accepted generic details. In this case an engineer is involved on this specific project and they will be reviewing the drawings, and then inspecting the work. That being said, I typically include this type of detail (but without the schedule) for the abovementioned type of walls. I do it because I have the template and method setup and it takes me about 5 minutes per wall. There's a $#!+load of specialty hardware that I haven't shown yet and it's often non-stocking items. Builders / framers don't typically think too far ahead. They'll order material for tomorrows work and then realize than the hardware needed for the wall is 2 weeks away. Obviously, that means it rarely gets installed. Believe it or not, with some of the hardware requirements, and stud spacing requirements, there is often only ONE possible order of operations to frame some of these walls, which essentially eliminates the laborers and leaves this work to the most skilled and experienced framer on site. I add these details in hopes that it allows more delegation to more laborers. In the above picture, I've used color fill for the various lumber types that matches what they look like in our region (to try to make the drawing intuitive). Light tan for SPF lumber, yellow for the LVL lintels (they have yellow wax in real) orange-ish for LVL studs (you guessed it - Boise Cascade LVL's have orange wax).

Is there any way to change Chief's auto naming of framing components to reflect regional vernacular? Example: Chief's "trimmers" in some regions may be referred to as "cripples" or "jack studs" etc. in another region. Chief's "wall framing" is typically "stud". I don't really want to do this all in the components label box, but might have no choice. Also, anyone have great ideas for clean labelling of wall details (framing)? A schedule works ok, except for overlapping labels on closely spaced members. I'm lazy and I don't want to move so many labels...

This company may have what you need: https://www.techo-bloc.com/support/resources/technical-resources/designers-toolbox/

That particular picture has no window trim. The stucco and the stone are finishing right up to the window frame. In order to get a proper stone sill at the bottom of windows, or at the top stone (in this case the same thing) you'll have to make it. I use a molding p-line to place my own stone sills that are sized to match the actual products used (in my region).

That's what I do. You can convert those to a fixture if you find the need. Warning: save a copy of the p-solid before you do that.. You can't nicely edit the fixture. I'd skip the tapered stone pedestal, unless the client insists upon it. Don't forget to insist upon proper construction detailing of the stone pedestal to timber post connection. Those are extremely expensive timbers to let a contractor bury in concrete and have them rot inside the pedestal. I use p-solids for everything here, except the stone capping which is a custom molding I made. You can use a tapered cap from the library, but then you'll have to modify the detail anyhow.

Thanks @Ridge_Runner.

Yes you would! Thanks for the video explanation. I appreciate the effort you put into a response. Of course, I have my drawing workflow structured quite different and possibly it's not the correct format for Chief. I'll try to briefly explain. I have all my section cameras (that will show up in the CD) displayed as callouts and placed on their own layer. In layout, I've used a detail callout to highlight all the locations that I felt details would be required. I did this because it's simple, meaning I can see multiple sections at one time, and I can flip pages instead of opening new cameras and dealing with a model rebuild. Also, this home is very complex, and while there's different ways to organize details, I chose to organize details based on order of appearance in the final CD. I felt that would be simplest for reading the plan. Here's a screenshot of a layout page ( and a closeup) of cross sections with my detail callouts in blue (they get turned to black at completion). All my sections are cameras, not CAD, sent as plotlines with color fill. My details are generally speaking, clipped section cameras, in the same location (plan view) as the section camera. The detail cameras are on their own layer and won't show up in plan view on CD's. In the detail camera, I may include more than one detail. Here's a plan view example, and a screenshot of that detail camera opened. It contains 3 separate details; 1 at each junction. And here's a screenshot of 1 of my layout pages of details. I send that detail camera to layout 3 times, and name the layout box. The numbers on my layout page are part of a template that allows for 12 details per page. I currently have 4 pages of details and I'd like to include an index of details that indicates its drawing #, page #, and reference drawing #. In my layout template, if I decide to omit the drawing that is in position 10, then I'd reposition the other drawings to fill that new, empty space. This is where it gets annoying working with layout. To my mind, it seems I need to be able to classify my layout boxes, and make schedules of them. Long story short, I understand the concept of specific note types and I use it to cover other 'limitations' (which I should post in a separate topic). I'll see if I can sort out a system using the notes. And, sorry if the screenshots are annoyingly blurry.

I suppose I could use my layout callouts for reference and organization only, and incorporate the notes and callouts directly on the sections. Same for plan view details.

I thought about that. I guess part of my problem is that theres so little function in layout and I try to keep section details to reference general cross sections. Ideally, note schedules would be available in layout as well. Or custom fields for layout boxes. To me it seems that each layout box needs to be able to have custom fields. And the ability to make a schedule of them.

Does anyone have some decent ideas to keep track of details? I'm working on a large home that has over 40 details. If I decide that a particular detail, let's say it's #5, is redundant or not required, that means I've got 35 details and their callouts to renumber????? I've been calling out details from the cross sections in layout, specifically so I don't have to open each section view (which is so tedious) in order to place callouts. But there's no schedule tool in layout to make any sort of auto-numbering system. And no linking system from the callout to the detail camera (I like to keep them live) or to the CAD detail (which I use for less dynamic details). This is as bad or worse than the issues one runs into when using room numbers. Surely there is some system within Chief for actual architectural plans?