Archnot-Boltz

Softplan is the only other program that I've tried that even comes close. I recommended that they get it on with Chief and make a badarse baby!

I agree that what Chief is doing is a colossal mistake. 1) Chief's Rental program after January is $199.00 per month vs Softplan's $99.00 per month rental program. with no purchase options #2) Chief's current Rent to Own should be kept because you would own the program after 22 months of continuous payments (about a grand more than an outright purchase) which is basically an interest charge for those who can't afford the initial $2395.00 outlay 3) $595.00 per annum for SSA is a great deal when weighed against the $199.00 per month rental program (they also give you a break on the SSA for additional licenses- currenty $416.50 per ). So my annual SSA for two licenses is currently $901.50). SSA is what allows Chief to continue improving and upgrading the program. I guarantee that part of the push to go to the Rental and eliminate the for purchase model is all the folks that sit back with older versions and don't contribute to the future of this program. 4) I do wish that Chief moving forward would offer the following options 1) Offer Purchase Option of $2395.00 plus require the payment of SSA annually or lose your license 2) Continue to offer the current Rent to Purchase option $199.00 per month with 22 consecutive week requirement 3) Offer a more reasonable Rent Only option at $99.00 per month (to realistically compete with Softplan's subscription service because, quite frankly at $199 per month, I think Chief is going to go out of business and I'd hate to see that!). -BB

Thanks, guess I'll have to learn how to use a #!!

I'm wanting to get GAF roofing products (especially shingles), added to our library. Our roofing and remodeling company are one of the largest regional installers of GAF shingles in our part of PA. I've been remiss in not bugging our rep. thanks-bb

Great tip Glenn, thanks. Still a bit of a work around because of Cheif's issues and their conflicts of Beams, Room Definition, Ceiling Area, Soffit Area, Railings and of course why the hell does a foundation wall's location have any business controlling a roof framing member and it's display? ( Riddle Me this Batman!)- but seriously-thanks. BB

Yeah, I fixed it myself after some screwing around. Thanks for the help. But still, why does Chief throw a goof notch at it? It still bugs me that I have to draw an additional three invisible walls and designating an open to below room in order to get the ceiling correct because of floors defining ceilings. bb

More images due to file limit of 14meg.

Dear Chief, isn't enough, enough? Common, man! Here we are in x14 and I'm still getting unwanted Rafter Notching. It just makes using Chief a pain and is the reason that my co-worker at a large remodeling and roofing firm is "demoing" Softplan at $95 per month because of it's better material's list and various construction oriented and design features. In this example, see attached images and attached drawing file. I've railed many times regarding Chief's inherent issues with conflicts caused by the way rooms are defined using walls and the interference caused by the foundation wall below if the beams above don't align, same with rails and beam conflicts and the way it also screws up the ceiling areas. I shouldn't have to explain any further. Just please fix the program so that we can do it right when creating our "Professional Drawings". Heck, Softplan gives you automatic 3d joist hangers but I'd give that up in a heartbeat if Chief would allow for correct framing and wall intersections. Sorry but I'm tired of wrasslin' wit woika-rounds!! bb 1259207018_NotchedRafterBSinx14Still.zip

Exactly, why do I need a room under a cantilever that does not have a room under it. This is a huge issue with Chief that relates to interference and conflicts with Railings, Beams, Porch and Deck boundaries, foundations below porches, porch roof soffits, porch ceilings etc. I guess I really should take this to Suggestions. bb

The floor should be cantilevered to support the mansard framing, which is how I have it. Cantilevered floor should be able to have a soffit ceiling underneath.

Well, I was going to put this post into Suggestions such as "Please Don't Make it so easy for this to occur" but figured it would get more traction here. Roof soffits seem touchy, sometimes they display correctly and sometimes they are screwed up by a roof or wall intersection. I have attached two images and the obligatory plan file. My solution, was to turn off Rafter Framing in Elevation and 3d views. And I'm sure my issue is caused by user error (but why so easy for an experienced user?) thanks for any input. -Brad Hotel Transilvania-RafterTails.zip

The're holding out until my stubborn arse learns how to do a macro!

How difficult would that have been to have the programmers include it as a toggle or option in the label's dbx?

That's a valid thing to request which is in-line with what the Sqiggle-Like Tool provides in 3d Sketch Style mode. They would probably just create that type (or two) arrow style without any control of the extension. But it shouldn't be that difficult to add control to the current controls. bb

I don't know Joey, I'm afraid to move it. I will do a Save As and try both Delete and Move to 0/0 and let y'all know what transpires.-thanks BB

I don't get it. The message gives me the option to delete the object in question but I have no idea what I'm deleting. Am I being silly here? Two Down Votes to One Upvote. I don't mind the down votes but similar to the Warning that I'm inquiring about, the Down Votes give me an equal amount of No Insight!

Absolutely Nothing, Right On!! I've been getting the attached message but it doesn't tell me where to look or show me where the issue is. What's the point? Common, if it's telling me the object is too far from the origin, then it knows what the object is and where said object is, right? Is this programmer sense of humor 101? Yuk, Yuk! Suggestion: All messages of this ilk should tell me where the problem is occurring. (ok it does tell, me- "it is too far from the origin"-Mike Drop!!) thanks, BB

You can lease Chief for what $199.00 per month. My associate has been "Demoing" Softplan, full version by leasing it for $99 per month. Both programs have functioning demos to try out.-BB

I wanted to try that a long time ago. Lenovo actually had a 17" CAD laptop with a pullout 10" second screen and a pen & built-in tablet in lieu of that stupid touch bar. How well does the tablet work regard pen clics vs mouse clicks (I heard that that was an issue, eg tapping the pen vs clicking a mouse button)?-BB

Standard Microsoft 2-button w/ scroll wheel (the old "keep it simple stupid" philosophy). Of course, I do use an ergo keyboard (Microsoft).

I appreciate the commentary because we all do things a bit differently. I think Chief will eventually be adding a few more user controls as they realize our needs. bb

Nice idea and try, thanks for the input.

I'm just trying to get Chief to fix it. Once I turn off autoframe roof I just change the two rafters and walk away. I prefer to leave my ridge beam displaying correctly. One thing I haven't tried is moving those two rafters and 1/8" inch away from the wall, which would probably fix it. Maybe I'll do that on Monday. Have a nice weekend and thanks for the reply Thus far, no one has offered a reasonable reason for this to remain as is. BB

Dear Chief, here again is my request to Divorce this Automatic Behavior caused by the Ridge Beam selection. In my example, I have a 3.5" wide x 14" LVL Structural Ridge Beam. My rafters are 2x10's 16" oc. In my section view, the two Rafters Against the house are always, automatically changed by Chief to match the Ridge Beam Size. Why would I want a 3.5"x14" rafter there. I always have to change those two offending rafters, back to 2x10 lumber. If auto rebuild is on, the two rafters revert back to 3.5"x14". This has been an issue for quite a few xVersions (maybe the entire x-series, I don't recall how long I've been bitching about it). Regardless, can you please fix this behavior with a default ON/Off setting (I don't know why there would be a need for an On Setting but I don't want to ruffle another users feathers. Thanks, Brad Also, please note how the 14" rafter is "Birdsmouthed" because of the invisible deck railing below- you may fix that issue too if you like. I've already sent that issue to Tech Support with another drawing file but have attached a zip file for fun. Stemko-RaftersClip-RidgeRafterEffectsWallRafters.zip

What I've been finding is that the colors from the background seem to taint the colors on my models. Even just using the blue sky affects my colors. I've also had issues with the shadows showing as almost solid black with no gradations in certain instances. I've noticed this in X13 and don't recall if it was an issue with x12.