robdyck

Can you post your plan, Alan?

Before drawing the sloped triangular portion (as shown in your image above) keep the main roof plane running through that area. Then, with your preferred slope already set in the roof dialog, draw a new roof plane starting exactly at the bottom, running parallel to the new plane's desired ridge. Extend the roof plan up to the desired ridge. Adjust the valley line to the 45 degree angle from the ridge. When you draw a roof plane directly over another roof plane, Chief will automatically start the new roof plane baseline elevation to match the elevation of the underlying roof plane at the location that you started drawing. Does that make sense?

The same thing will happen when / is placed in the middle of a word. The word is no longer recognized but can be separated for wrapping. Alternatively, you could use the plus/minus symbol ± by typing in Alt+0177. As long as your plan readers understand the symbol.

Then I wouldn't have that same suggestion for you. All I'm saying is that when a problem arises, you can keep trying the same thing hoping it doesn't happen again or you can try something else. My suggested correction is only suitable for those who have had that particular issue. One of the issues with identifying the cause is that these types of errors, (whether caused by the software or the user) is that they are often not noticed by the user until many other steps or processes have been completed. Because there are so many variations and regional framing preferences, if Chief's auto tools don't work for you, then don't use them. There are other great tools at your disposal. I'm not alone with a couple of reasons that I never use Chief's deck framing tools. In my region: Ledgers are always installed over the wall sheathing. deck beams and posts are always flush to the exterior. I wasn't trying to make a universal proclamation to the world, simply to those who have experienced the issue as described by the OP. I have no way of knowing if the OP actually experienced a bug in the software or if he just made a mistake. Is it possible that myself and others think we know what we are doing but still make mistakes that cause us problems? Of course it is! I posted my solution because it worked for me. I didn't like sending out completed plan sets with the deck beams missing and my solution has proved bullet proof for me and saved me time. So I learned to use the power of the library and it seemed like an idea worth sharing. Perhaps it comes down to a user's understanding or interpretation of what 'Retain Floor/Ceiling Framing' actually does. If I uncheck 'Automatically regenerate deck framing' and if I check 'Retain Floor/Ceiling Framing', then the framing should remain regardless of what type of future edits I need to make, right? In the example plan, I have done both. I've completed my plan and the framing has been edited to my satisfaction! Now my client has asked for some other changes and I've inadvertently lost the deck room definition by disconnecting a railing wall. No worries, the framing is locked! Well, let me get my glasses because at first glance, it looks like the deck joists are gone. That couldn't be because it is impossible...clearly I am mistaken. Obviously in the example above I used a floor beam and posts because...they are still there! Therefore the same must hold true for floor joists, right? If I delete an exterior wall, I'll obviously lose all the floor joists (trusses in this case). Weird, I shortened a basement wall and yet the floor trusses remain. But the floor trusses don't even have a 'lock'. How could anyone possibly misinterpret this? This must simply be an anomaly of user error. No one would ever run into this scenario. Back to my deck framing. The plan was complete and my client has now asked for a deck with treated planks instead of composite. No problem. This will be a cheap and easy change because I already have different room types set up and the framing is the same...not to mention that it's locked!!! I love this feature because I can make this change, update a few notes and re-issue the plan and then head out for an early lunch! All I have to do is make sure that the new room type has 'Automatically regenerate deck framing' unchecked. Easy, peasy! Wait a minute...something looks odd here. I can't have lost the deck joists. It's been unequivocally stated that this is impossible! Chief would never do this to me, would it? I mean, I thought we were friends...or at least got along pretty well most of the time. I'm gonna have to re-evaluate some things here. Next time, I think I'll just use the floor joists from my library. They understand me. A lengthy post, no doubt, but something along those lines has probably been experienced by at least one other Chief user. That's who my suggestion was for. My sincere apologies to the downvoter who was offended by my personal preferences, methods and my lived experience.

The general concept of losing edited deck framing members is not new to X15. I learned a long time ago to not trust deck framing members. I'm sure it goes against Chief's recommendations, but do not use deck framing members if you need them in a plan set. Is there any other way to say this? Rather, use floor framing members and change their role, layer, and other properties to suit your needs. Save frequently used types as a CAD block in your library. Learn how to draw and edit the framing manually. It will be faster, more accurate, and reliable. Chief's auto deck framing is NOT suitable for any practical purpose related to plans, it is simply there to get an idea of what the deck framing looks like. Just like every other framing tool. They can provide good visualization and even a good start, but it is often harder to edit Chief's generated floor / roof framing than to draw it from scratch, assuming you know how!

I can't say why it would be happening. I used to deal with this frequently. Deck framing would rebuild and edits would be lost even after every possible lock was set. My solution was to only build deck framing for projects where it was necessary to show in either plan view or 3d view, and manually frame everything using floor joists / beams. It was almost always faster to build manually than cleaning up Chief's auto generated framing. Keep in mind that you can save this framing to your library as CAD blocks!

Then you should do that. Chief really knows their stuff when it comes to renderings!!

The method discussed above does not use a 'label, but rather has Show Length and Show Angle displayed for a line or polyline. These cannot be moved. To have the length and angle displayed in various formats as a label would be relatively complicated and would mean that a site perimeter would need to be drawn with individual lines and possibly utilize some macros for the label.

I'd like to make suggestions: Use Posts for the...posts. Use a Beam for the Beam. A General Framing member works as well. Use a 3d molding for the diagonal members of your truss. These adjustments will give you improved control and appearance as the wood grain will run the correct direction on all components. You can actually use a truss to model that truss, but that is a bit more of an advanced method. And you can assign those items to whatever layer suits your needs.

IMO, physically based. Sounds like you've got a bit of a learning curve ahead of you though.

In your case, you've used a ceiling plane, however it is higher than the bottom of the rafters (structure tab) of the roof planes. Seeing as your ceiling planes are not symmetrically balanced with the roof planes above, you should do some cleanup. That being said, you have a couple of options to fix the model: reduce the structure depth of the roof planes OR lower the ceiling planes so they are below the roof structure Because I don't know your structural preferences or requirements, I'll leave the 9 1/4" rafters as-is and lower the ceiling planes. As you'll see, that leaves some decision making about how to deal with transition depth from rafters to eaves at the gable end.

Keep in mind that a sloped ceiling that is generated by a roof plane can't extend beyond the actual roof plane. In this case, the ceiling couldn't possibly extend to front door wall because the roof plane doesn't. This leaves you with 2 options: use a ceiling plane (preferred) OR extend the roof plane to the front door wall

You should post the plan. That being said, ceiling planes almost always need 'use room ceiling finish' unchecked to model correctly.

You are correct, you can't select fixtures with the Object Eyedropper tool. But neither can anyone else!

Well too much computer speak is not my specialty, but I had to buy a new machine to use X15...

Are you still getting the same type of image? Have you closed Chief and restarted your PC? Have you set your graphics card to recognize Chief X15 (nvidia control panel / program setttings)?

There is no point spending too much time in Substance Player making materials unless you are also supplying high resolution and high quality renderings.

You can use the Revers Plan tool (Tools / Reverse Plan) or you can use the Edit Area tool (Edit / Edit Area...). Both have their pros and cons. Save the plan. Try one of those functions. Inspect. If you don't like it, you can close without saving and try again. Or use Undo.

I can't see any way to determine how you had that problem. All camera types and rendering techniques work as expected.

Standard: Physically Based: Clay:

Post the plan.

You're much more observant than I am. I just read the question and saw X15 user in the signature.

You can also try a distribution polyline.

You can select them all at once just by multiple selecting with your mouse. Just like marquee select, or similar to marquee selecting items in the library. Click, hold, drag, release. adjustmultiplelights.mp4

Obviously I had no idea about that reference. At least now that makes sense to me. You learn something new every...so often!