DzinEye

14 hours ago, scmods2 said:

My floor plan is not recognizing one full space as a part of the plan, and there fore the exterior and everything else is getting messed up.  I tried to copy the whole plan into another file in case it was corrupted somehow, and I'm getting this: Unable to paste "Window". "Window" must be placed into a containing object on an unlocked layer.

Try to select the 'exterior room' which should border the whole exterior of the plan.  When you do it will highlight just as an interior room would, but based on what you're saying it should leak into the interior of the room you're having issue with.  Seeing where that leak happens should tell you where the wall problem is that is not properly closing off the room.  

3 hours ago, MarkMc said:

I don't understand? Using Chief's built in PDF printer produces a document with only one layer. I just checked again in Bluebeam PDF review which will show me layers in PDFs and has a flatten function. I only use the flatten function after I have made notations to a document so that they can't be changed. I wish CA would produce a PDF with layers, I can't even print with BlueBeam from Chief and get layers. What am I missing?

 

1 hour ago, Alaskan_Son said:

I was thinking the same thing as you.  Chief produces a flattened PDF out of the box.  Maybe some jurisdictions use “flattened” to mean a single OBJECT page as in images only (no vectors/text).

I thought this too, and was about to say so, but before I did decided to try the Edit Text button on my PDF editor (PDF-Xchange) and I was flabbergasted to see that all the text fields were individually selectable and editable.... Even the Watermark!   So much for THAT offering any protection unless you flatten...

I have PDF-Xchange where there's a checkbox for 'Print as Image' which flattens it.  In Chief, there is a Print Image option right below Print in the print drop-down... I haven't used it, but I suspect that is what it will accomplish.  Personally I would probably print from Chief normally, then re-print using Adobe or other and looking for that Print Image option 

1 hour ago, HumbleChief said:

It looks like the technique has to include a first floor ceiling height that doesn't need to change before messing with the second floor framing. That way the ceiling heights don't NEED changing when the floor heights above no longer match? Make sense?

I'm rather guessing that the issue is that if there's more than one room under the floor that needs adjusting then the problem crops up.  Maybe you can set the walls that break up the room below the area to 'no room definition' and see what happens.

EDIT:  Nope... I put in lower floor walls and what I did above still works... not sure what you're experiencing.

38 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Not sure how you all would handle this condition. There is a second floor living area that sits on 12" TJI deep framing and outdoor living area that sits on 2 x 8 framing. If only the floor heights are adjusted then there's that warning about ceiling heights on the floor below can't be changed because the floor heights above vary. Adding an air space to the 2 x 8's brings the floor heights to equal but the framing at the railings and wall transitions are raised over the air gap. It can be handled with a detail but am wondering how you all might deal with the same condition? Thanks

I think this is what you're trying to achieve?... if so, I just got rid of the air space and adjusted the lower ceiling height in the structure tab so it was the same as the other area.

4 hours ago, parkwest said:

Here is what I do that is simple to do...  I check the like box for each library I download... then I can tell at a glance which ones I already have downloaded when looking to see what is new.

Hey...that's a great idea!

1 hour ago, SNestor said:

Why?

And is there a fix for this? 

This happens not just with CMU but with Concrete and ICF wall types too.  
Interestingly enough, it does not happen with Glass block wall type... which I kind of figured would have masonry attributes.
If you move the concrete or cmu to the exterior layer, then the ceiling finish will stop.  I used 1/16" glass for the main layer.  I'm not suggesting this is a work-around... just saying how it works.  
It seems there is some hidden code within material definitions which controls these things.  It may be one of those things that they could change the coding to match how it works for fir framing, but then we'd have other issues pop up?... I dunno.  Worth asking Chief I think...

15 hours ago, mtldesigns said:

Anyone knows how to do this without filling gaps will polys?

Build a roof hole polyline around your dormer... like ~12" beyond it's walls... just rough it in.   Now you will see that your dormer walls will go down to the ceiling framing.   Now select the main roof plane that the dormer is placed in, open it and select No Special Snapping.  Now snug your roof hole up to the outside of your dormer walls.   If you don't turn off special snapping, then the roof hole will automatically snap to the inside of the dormer and cut off your walls at the roof level. 

6 hours ago, stager386 said:

What I find cumbersome is trying to see if there are new libraries to download that I don't have. 

I've thought this many many times.  Appreciate the tips for helping speed the process too guys, but I really think this is worthy of a suggestion.  It would be nice if a full list of available libraries popped up which had check boxes we could select and easily see what we've already selected. 

1 hour ago, Doug_N said:

I know how to build it, but the trick is to model this in a way that I can do a reasonable visual facsimile and generate construction drawings

Ok.  I figured you did at first, but then began wondering if you might need to avoid posts going through the roof surface.

The way I mention will work...as will Mick's, though the rail will be right at the outer edge with that method.

2 hours ago, robdyck said:

The new image created from today's update took 3-4x longer to generate and looks quite a bit worse so plenty of settings to tweak again.:(

Hmmm... I guess it's one of those 'eye of the beholder' things.  I kind of prefer the X13 render... though the extra time is a downer.  I did notice this glitch in your Beta render too which disappears in the final version render.   Nice model/render BTW... what's that material you have on the FP?

1 hour ago, Doug_N said:

 

Suggestions??   This one has me perplexed.

Well... is the question how to model it to look right, or how to actually build it?  Granted, for many chief users this is one in the same, but certainly not always for me.   Quickly to model it, note that the bottom of the rail as you have it is at the ceiling level... so just add to the height of the railing wall the height of the roof structure thickness, then you can even raise the bottom rail that thickness.   This may actually even represent how it would be built, if you don't mind tearing up roof to fasten the deck posts to the roof joists.

13 hours ago, jtcapa1 said:

I cannot find a way to drop the beam below the adjacent roof eave

Ahh... it appeared from the pic you attached in your OP that you only wanted the beam in that one section dropped

2 minutes ago, robdyck said:

9 minutes ago, DzinEye said:

 

I make a mean jello salad

Hahaha...omg... where'd you dig that up?!?!  blechh

4 minutes ago, robdyck said:

This applies to my general experiences...so generally speaking the 2nd building is a simpler building like a pool house or a detached garage, or a nanny suite.

1. Usually, due to the slope of the lot, the main floor of the accessory building is not at ZERO. This creates hassles.
2. Usually the accessory building can almost be completely built using Chief's auto tools, which are turned off in the main plan because of it's complexity.
3. The client may be indecisive about the placement of the 2nd building relative to the first, or relative to the lot, which requires much more time to make those adjustments.
4. I have many template files for accessory buildings which are completed plan sets and layout sets that, due to Chief's auto tools, often only require me to move 2 walls and alter a few settings to have a completed plan set in minutes.
5. I never have an issue converting a building to a symbol. It works great.
6. I don't like my jello salad touching the potatoes and gravy...ughh, gross!

Thanks for elucidating Rob... fair enough...I can't disagree with any of your reasoning, especially #6....  but I try not to design anything akin to jello salad... that is pretty gross.  I think of it more as the gravy on my meat is also on the mashed potatoes, and all is good. 
 

9 minutes ago, robdyck said:

I NEVER EVER draw 2 buildings in the same plan file. There are plenty of reasons why I wouldn't. If I need to provide imaging of both together, I'll use a symbol of the simpler building or Chief's reference display.

I've successfully done multiple buildings in one plan many many times.  I tried the sybmol method once and was just frustrated by it.  Curious why you feel so adamant about not doing it?

11 hours ago, jtcapa1 said:

Is there any way to make the railing to beam height lower?

Define that wall section without a beam in the dbx and manually draw the beam

10 minutes ago, jtcapa1 said:

The main issue is that CA does not want to display the handle for the top hinged door at the top or bottom but defaults to the side??

I believe this is the same issue MarkMc just asked about ... perhaps it was in suggestions, but Michael suggested the solution which was to set the hardware offset to zero.
I'll see if I can find the OP and post it..

Yep.. it was in Suggestions

1 hour ago, robdyck said:

If you use trusses, there would be a structural truss with vertical gable studs between the stress members / top & bottom chords. 

If you use rafters, there would be a gable end wall framed between ceiling joists and roof rafters.

You forgot the skyhook method...

1 minute ago, LightHouse_Doug said:

However, there is no way to paste and hold position from the CAD detail to the live elevation,

Did you try it??  Absolutely it works... 

56 minutes ago, LightHouse_Doug said:

I'm having an issue with dimensioning in a back-clipped section with the point to point dimension tool (or any tool).

Long-standing issue getting snaps to objects in elevation and section.  
Use Cad Detail from view... do your Point to point dimension there, then cut and paste it into your section... Or just use the cad detail if you don't need a live section

13 minutes ago, BruceKC said:

When I do a side elevation, and I turn shadows on, there are now no shadows.  I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. 

Did you play with the 'adjust sunlight angle' options?  If you select sun follows camera then you should get shadows automatically, but you can fine tune manually

Use the closed sided stringers option then the exagerated tread overhang won't apply to the side.

Edit: While the 'closed sided' stringer does the trick I actually used the custom stringer option and set the above and below numbers to zero to reduce the stringer  size as much as possible. ( I hid the stringer so you could see the tread size and overhang)

30 minutes ago, ACADuser said:

This is more of what I was after.

Perhaps I should just use solids to make it?

 

Well... as per your pic, generally the tread gets fairly narrow in a 'ladder' stair....but I was able to get what you want..

On 6/14/2021 at 7:44 AM, Joe_Carrick said:

Edit the "Y" 3D offset for the Symbol

^^^... yep..  But sure would be nice if Chief corrected these in their libraries