Dimension is not right

[tdroes82]

Can someone please help me with this:

When I draw exterior walls, and then interior walls, and add interior dimension manually, I get one dimension that is 0.02" wider than what it should be. Is the setting in my wall thickness?

 

Please see attached file. See the interior dimension string at the bottom. Move wall using dimensions and you can see the problem.

 

This happens on all of my plans, and I can not find the setting to fix it. Thanks. Thomas

Dimension os off a fraction.plan

[AvoyeDesign]

I loaded the file and I don't see any issues.  Can you be more specific?  A screen image might help.

[DRAWZILLA]

Set your dim. DBX to something like !/4" or larger or whatever metric system equivalent.

[tdroes82]

attached is a simpler example.

 

Try moving the interior wall using dimension. Click the wall, then click on the dimension on the right. Here is the value it is at

 

It should be 9'1.5"

it is 1/64" off somewhere in my wall thickness. But this is not the case when I look at my wall in Wall Types.

 

Dimension os off a fraction.plan

[tdroes82]

the screen shot did not load in.

 

When you click on the center wall, then use the 9'-1 1/2" dimension. Here is the value that is in 9' 1.52"

It should be exactly 9'1.5"

 

What is the problem? It is on all of my plans. Does anyone else have this issue?

[tdroes82]

I must no be explaining this properly. Let me try again.

 

The attached plan exterior dim is 20'. exterior walls are 3.5" thick.

 

Total interior measurement should be 19'5" even.

 

Now, click on one of the exterior walls. Then the 19'5" dimension. It reads 19' 5.02".

Why is the actual interior dimension +0.02" wider than it should be?

 

Thomas

 

Dimension is off a fraction.plan

[Alaskan_Son]

Open up your wall definition and re-enter the width for the wall's main layer.  Not sure how it happened, but one way or another the width or your main layer was set to 3 63/128" (3.49").  You can't tell by looking at the dbx because Chief automatically displays those numbers to the nearest 1/64".  Change the Number Style to Decimal Inches and you'll see what I mean...

 

[tdroes82]

That was it Alaskan_Son. Thanks so much.

[AvoyeDesign]

18 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

Open up your wall definition and re-enter the width for the wall's main layer.  Not sure how it happened, but one way or another the width or your main layer was set to 3 63/128" (3.49").  You can't tell by looking at the dbx because Chief automatically displays those numbers to the nearest 1/64".  Change the Number Style to Decimal Inches and you'll see what I mean...

 

I've made it a habit to never accept a dimension as shown unless I have entered it myself, and this is a prime example as to why I do this.  It's really odd to see this in a wall thickness.

 

I've discovered why this happens, and I think it is a bug.  I began with the OOB Siding-6 wall and changed it to a 2x4 wall by resizing it in the wall DBX.  I changed the wall thickness from 6 15/16" to 4 15/16".  I checked the wall thickness and it was 3.49".  Noticing that the housewrap layer is actually 0.01", I then removed that layer form the Siding-6 wall before resizing it in the wall DBX.  I checked the wall thickness and it was 3.5.  So when you resize the wall from the wall DBX, chief takes this 0.01" away from the main layer. So the OOB wall has a housewrap layer that appears to be 0" when it is actually 0.01".  I manually changed the housewrap layer to 0 and then changed the wall thickness in the wall DBX, and I got 3.5".

 

This may not actually be a bug, as the program is doing proper math, and the wall thickness shown is actually 6 15/16" plus 0.01", but that 0.01 is lost to rounding and doesn't show to the user.  And even changing one digit in the wall thickness field is read as a user entry, and that extra 0.01 that is hidden due to rounding is lost, thus it is taken from the framing layer.

 

I'll report this to chief if I get time, but if you want to instead let me know.  Chief should not package their OOB wall definitions like this if it causes accuracy problems and headache.  I will also need to go over all my wall definitions to correct this.

 

[AvoyeDesign]

I think we need an indicator in dimension fields that are rounded, that indicates that the number has been rounded up or down.  If it read something like  6 15/16 (-), so that the (-) indicates the number has been rounded down.  Then a user change will not show a rounding indicator, and will clue the user in to a possible problem like the one I describe above.

[tdroes82]

to KervinHomeDesign

 

Thanks for the info. I believe that is what happened. I do not remember ever manually changing the layer thickness. I figured it was from my house wrap layer that was messing it up, so I removed that, and still there was the same problem. Turns out the automatic change to the wall thickness changed and did not reset to 3.5". Now I understand how it happened.

 

The problem has driven me crazy for quite some time. But now i know where it is. I just could not find it.

[Alaskan_Son]

33 minutes ago, KervinHomeDesign said:

I've made it a habit to never accept a dimension as shown unless I have entered it myself, and this is a prime example as to why I do this.  It's really odd to see this in a wall thickness.

 

I've discovered why this happens, and I think it is a bug.  I began with the OOB Siding-6 wall and changed it to a 2x4 wall by resizing it in the wall DBX.  I changed the wall thickness from 6 15/16" to 4 15/16".  I checked the wall thickness and it was 3.49".  Noticing that the housewrap layer is actually 0.01", I then removed that layer form the Siding-6 wall before resizing it in the wall DBX.  I checked the wall thickness and it was 3.5.  So when you resize the wall from the wall DBX, chief takes this 0.01" away from the main layer. So the OOB wall has a housewrap layer that appears to be 0" when it is actually 0.01".  I manually changed the housewrap layer to 0 and then changed the wall thickness in the wall DBX, and I got 3.5".

 

This may not actually be a bug, as the program is doing proper math, and the wall thickness shown is actually 6 15/16" plus 0.01", but that 0.01 is lost to rounding and doesn't show to the user.  And even changing one digit in the wall thickness field is read as a user entry, and that extra 0.01 that is hidden due to rounding is lost, thus it is taken from the framing layer.

 

I'll report this to chief if I get time, but if you want to instead let me know.  Chief should not package their OOB wall definitions like this if it causes accuracy problems and headache.  I will also need to go over all my wall definitions to correct this.

 

 

Excellent sleuthing good sir, my hats off to you.  Thanks. 

 

After testing it out and giving it some thought, I believe that you are correct.  This behaviour should be considered a bug.  I really have no problem with Chief rounding DISPLAYED values for the various fields as long as the actual values are maintained.  The problem is that they don't seem to be maintaining these values throughout.  There seems to be some data loss between the thickness field in the General tab and the wall definition.  The funny thing is that if you change the Number Style to decimal inches before making your changes on the General tab that the values are calculated and carried though correctly.

[Alaskan_Son]

18 minutes ago, KervinHomeDesign said:

I think we need an indicator in dimension fields that are rounded, that indicates that the number has been rounded up or down.  If it read something like  6 15/16 (-), so that the (-) indicates the number has been rounded down.  Then a user change will not show a rounding indicator, and will clue the user in to a possible problem like the one I describe above.

 

I like this idea although I'm not sure whether the (-) should mean that the number has been rounded down or if it should perhaps mean that the real number is slightly smaller and has been rounded up.  The latter makes more sense to me personally because that's how I notate that situation myself but I could adapt to either method. 

 

This is a very good idea though and I think you should post it as a suggestion.