robdyck

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Always nice when the fix is quick, right?!

Post your plan and I can take a look if you'd like.

Those walls should be your exterior wall type with the lower wall type set to use the interior wall (Roof> Lower Wall Type if Split by Butting Roof). Make sure balloon through ceiling above is checked for the side walls.

For exterior hinged doors, Chief will not build the rough opening bottom clearance lower than the top of the subfloor, regardless of the value you enter. It appears as though the only way to get the slab to extend over the foundation wall for a hinged exterior door is to leave the bottom of the door at 0" from the floor. Needless to say, there are some modelling details at play here that could use further development. If it were up to me, I'd start with the ability to properly select and model a door sill / threshold.

I'm used to the trim showing on the bottom because my exterior hinged doors are always 1.5" off the floor. It would be nice if Chief gave us a bit more control over how this functions. It gets a bit more awkward when using an ICF foundation because Chief likes to strip Styrofoam in an uncontrolled fashion. Now that the slab sticks through, I had to edit all my room types to get rid of the additional sub-base layers. In the image below, the door on the right is at 0" above the floor...although I'm not sure how hard you'd need to push to be able to open it.

You can get rid of it by raising your garage doors 1/16"...if that works for you. Not ideal, I know.

There's no plan attached. Was that overlooked?

You're welcome!

Email sent!

It means there are too many surfaces for that export type. Just try a different 3d file type like a 3D Collada file.

I'm not sure what the difference would be. Chief is automatically measuring the crown molding and displaying it in 'feet' rounded up. It is a measurement of length. If you'd like it to be more accurate than the rounded unit of 'feet' you could change the unit to inches. Simply double click on the 'count' field and select a different measurement unit. The price should automatically adjust but you should double check that.

I believe I mentioned it was the simplest method that I have found. Are you able to post a video to demonstrate your simpler method of drawing accurate horizontal or vertical lines in elevation or section view with snaps disabled? I love learning new techniques!

Until proper snapping is brought back, the simplest solution I've found is to draw the line and snap the end of the line to desired point, noticeably off-angle. Then relocate the end of the line and the horizontal or vertical snap will be active and should be simple and easy to hit.

I did send this in to TS as 'lost functionality' and they agreed. They were not aware that this had changed and I would expect this to be fixed, however it may help if more people report it directly to TS.