robdyck

Yes, it works!

@Joe_Carrick Thank-you! No one would ever just 'figure' this out, so I really appreciate it.

There is a ton of useful information for roofs that could easily be provided on a set of plans if Chief would give it's customers simple and reasonable access...which is not a materials list. And number formatting macros to remove the 15 decimal places are not reasonable either, which is why the new schedule feature is helpful. Designers need to be able to report more information on plan sets and it has to be automatic.

Is there any way to access the roof surface material only, in a roof plane schedule, without including all the substrate materials? I have more than 1 roof material and to automatically identify those in the plan view would be helpful.

That's for sure! Several years ago I had to frame a huge house where all roof planes front-to-back were 6:12 and all planes side-to-side were 7:12. Vulgar language was required! Wouldn't have bothered me if they were quite different, but 6's and 7's?? Not cool!

Click on one valley, press '2', then click on the connecting valley. Same for hips and ridges.

When adding the component for your fabric, you'll need to do the following: go to Count / Formula, select Insert Macro. Select Object Specific / Area. Then beside that, select Apply Formula to Source Object.

This info is inaccessible. When I need to report it, I do it manually.

You need to make the half wall a 'furred wall' in the Structure tab. However, there will still be some drywall missing, but on the ends instead of the back. This can be corrected by editing the wall layer intersections in plan view. Select the side walls, click the Edit Wall Layer Intersections tool and extend the drywall layer to the back wall. In the view below, I have simply 'painted' the drywall material to tile for the Shower room, so it's not 100% accurate but the principle applies. I would add backsplashes once the design was finalized.

And most importantly, include a disclaimer note that all RO's need to be confirmed with manufacturer or supplier specifications where applicable.

For the sake of a set of plans, it may be more sensible to include a list of RO spec's in a set of notes. But yes, you can set up the defaults in Chief to frame pocket doors correctly. I don't know the usual RO's in your region, but a general note might look something like this: • BIFOLD DOORS: WIDTH + 1 1/2" / HEIGHT + 1 1/2" • POCKET DOORS: (WIDTH x 2) + 1" / HEIGHT + 4 1/2"

Glad I could help and that it actually made sense to you!

If you're preference is that the cricket slope remain at 1/2:12, then we will need to alter the baseline. To do this accurately, we first need to know the baseline and ridge elevation of the cricket at 1/4:12. In your case, the baseline is 306" and the ridge is 308 1/4". The difference of 2 1/4" is the critical number. Then, we need to know the length of the valley. All we need to do is dimension it or open that line and check it's length, In this case, it's approx. 152". Now we need to know the angle for 2.25" of rise over 152" of run. I simply drew an polyline and measured the angle. Now we can turn on the roof baseline layer and alter it. Once that layer is turned on, select the cricket roof plane and drag the END of the baseline to the high point of the valley. Then open the cricket roof plane dialog and make sure the baseline elevation is locked. You can then slope the baseline by entering the correct angle. Then change the roof pitch to 1/2:12. The result is that the roof pitch is now tilted and sloping towards the valley.

If the cricket slope is reduced to 1/4:12, then they join nicely.

@ACADuser A The height issue you described comes from the fact that the main roof pitch is 1/4:12 while the cricket is 1/2:12. To get a nice 45 degree valley, they'd need to be the same pitch.

@ACADuser I'll take a look.

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.