I think they've fixed floor and ceiling elevations.

[Richard_Morrison]

I haven't seen anything about this mentioned, but one of the issues that used to drive me nuts was the tendency for floors and ceilings to act like "jello." You'd adjust one floor, and then others would change, and there was a constant back and forth getting the floor and ceiling heights to be correct. I just spent some time working with floor elevations in a cross section, and now it all seems to work the way you'd probably want it too. It used to be that you'd have to start at the top floor, get everything right, then move to the next lower floor -- being REALLY careful. Now, you can also start at the bottom and work your way up. When you finally set the top floor ceiling height, the wall top STAYS at that elevation, regardless of how you now change the floor elevations. Also, it seems like there is more error control. If you try to adjust a room with multiple ceiling heights, you are only allowed to adjust the floor elevation, rather than create a mess. Foundation floors and stem walls seem to work properly. Anyway, whatever Chief has done, I think it's a huge improvement, so kudos to the programmers.

 

EDIT: I still would prefer the foundation floor to control the stem wall height, the way it USED to work. It used to be that you'd set the foundation floor, and the stem wall/footing could be raised to the bottom of the floor, but no further. It could go below, though. I don't like that the stem wall can change the floor level.

[mrscott]

Hey Richard,

 

As I finish up what I hope will be my last plan in Chief, I ran into the same height adjustment issues. The engineering shifted to 24" Open Web Trusses (OWT). After adjusting the Floor Structure in Defaults, deleted the 18" trusses, I re-drew the new trusses. All data was correct but the trusses did not draw as 24". A few Floor beams I added were correct, which clued me in on the error, but it was not until I reached out the Michael Pache was the problem solved. He suggested showing the floor structure as I-Joist and then when all is fine, delete the i-Joist and manually draw the OWT. The floor above is not the same footprint of the floor below and due to the 30' open span below, the Trusses will be applied to the entire floor structure. 

 

In addition to the above I still run into, IMHO, far too many little quirks that still rear their ugly head. I applaud all the dedicated Chief loyalist who have managed, good or bad, a method to working through these issues. What would be helpful, but unlikely, is a video step x step process of how to manage changes in Chief. Every Architect makes changes and no matter how well you do on the initial pass, when changes wreak havoc on the plan. All that being said, the fact that ROOMS still control far too much. Why not use Stories Like all the MAJOR Architectural Programs do. 

 

[yusuf-333]

1 hour ago, mrscott said:

Hey Richard,

 

As I finish up what I hope will be my last plan in Chief, I ran into the same height adjustment issues. The engineering shifted to 24" Open Web Trusses (OWT). After adjusting the Floor Structure in Defaults, deleted the 18" trusses, I re-drew the new trusses. All data was correct but the trusses did not draw as 24". A few Floor beams I added were correct, which clued me in on the error, but it was not until I reached out the Michael Pache was the problem solved. He suggested showing the floor structure as I-Joist and then when all is fine, delete the i-Joist and manually draw the OWT. The floor above is not the same footprint of the floor below and due to the 30' open span below, the Trusses will be applied to the entire floor structure. 

 

In addition to the above I still run into, IMHO, far too many little quirks that still rear their ugly head. I applaud all the dedicated Chief loyalist who have managed, good or bad, a method to working through these issues. What would be helpful, but unlikely, is a video step x step process of how to manage changes in Chief. Every Architect makes changes and no matter how well you do on the initial pass, when changes wreak havoc on the plan. All that being said, the fact that ROOMS still control far too much. Why not use Stories Like all the MAJOR Architectural Programs do. 

 

Go see what you can do with other applications and I am sure you will be beck to chief though you could be shy to show up here. That day, doors are still open for you and don't be sorry for the possible mistake you are making to day. Actually not a mistake at all, it is better to see for your self rather than being in dilemma about software X and Y that are all not perfect, even if it is chief!!. And ofcourse you are headed to forums that often times, you are not allowed to post any thing closer to what you win here about chief.

Good luck!!

[mthd97]

Thanks for veryfying that for us in Chief X10, Richard. You only know how good it works when you test a project inside the program, like you have done. I can honestly say that I was hoping that was the case in X10, giving room stability like you have found. I am glad I upgraded to X10 and I feel more motivated to do full timber frame split level home inside CA again now.

 

3d room module blocks is one way CA achieves speed but the accuracy used to drop with these room module blocks jumping around when changes are made. I don't think CA will change this system but I do think there are many more ways to gain even more stability and uniformity. 

 

[lbuttery]

I will add that it would be nice to be able "lock" a wall or a room or a floor or an area (say a wing)

 

then if Chief decides your current action is going to have an effect on the locked area it should issue a warning

if you choose to be warned via preferences

 

but for Chief to just "do its thing" without warning can cause real problems if it goes unnoticed

 

been requesting "locks" for over a decade and will continue to do so ....

 

Lew

 

[HumbleChief]

On 6/2/2018 at 10:49 PM, Richard_Morrison said:

I haven't seen anything about this mentioned, but one of the issues that used to drive me nuts was the tendency for floors and ceilings to act like "jello." You'd adjust one floor, and then others would change, and there was a constant back and forth getting the floor and ceiling heights to be correct. I just spent some time working with floor elevations in a cross section, and now it all seems to work the way you'd probably want it too. It used to be that you'd have to start at the top floor, get everything right, then move to the next lower floor -- being REALLY careful. Now, you can also start at the bottom and work your way up. When you finally set the top floor ceiling height, the wall top STAYS at that elevation, regardless of how you now change the floor elevations. Also, it seems like there is more error control. If you try to adjust a room with multiple ceiling heights, you are only allowed to adjust the floor elevation, rather than create a mess. Foundation floors and stem walls seem to work properly. Anyway, whatever Chief has done, I think it's a huge improvement, so kudos to the programmers.

 

EDIT: I still would prefer the foundation floor to control the stem wall height, the way it USED to work. It used to be that you'd set the foundation floor, and the stem wall/footing could be raised to the bottom of the floor, but no further. It could go below, though. I don't like that the stem wall can change the floor level.

Maybe you are right Richard but for me I have NEVER used a more confusing floor structure interface than Chief's. Not only confusing but down right backwards and wrong when setting defaults and expecting them to behave as such. I've used the program for 20 years and still fight the illogic that goes in to setting floor/ceiling heights. Does that make me stupid? Maybe, and I don't doubt that my intellect can be suspect but there are so many things that simply make no sense (to me).

 

The saddest part to me is that Chief has absolutely no desire (proven by the complete lack of interface changes and/or improvements) to create an easy to understand graphical interface for floor and ceiling heights/levels/stories/floors that even us morons can understand. I am fairly certain that the skill set to create a user friendly interface simply doesn't exist within the company and there seems to be no desire to either hire or teach that skill, again proven out by the years and years with no real changes.

 

Please prove me wrong Chief, but the proof is in the pudding and this pudding is still very ,very confusing even though there might a slight improvement as you've illustrated.

[Richard_Morrison]

45 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Maybe you are right Richard but for me I have NEVER used a more confusing floor structure interface than Chief's. Not only confusing but down right backwards and wrong when setting defaults and expecting them to behave as such. I've used the program for 20 years and still fight the illogic that goes in to setting floor/ceiling heights.

Larry, I don't disagree. I have had to settle into the the conclusion that the only logic in having ceiling heights controlling floor heights is that if you think of rough ceiling heights as the rough framing heights of walls, it kinda sorta makes sense. Most builders probably are going to set the walls based on stud lengths (nominal 8', 9', etc.) , and the floor joist depths are whatever they are. If you start manipulating floor depths, then the ability to reset wall heights using default relative rough ceiling heights is very useful. 

[HumbleChief]

55 minutes ago, Richard_Morrison said:

...it kinda sorta makes sense.

Yes, and your posts are always well thought out and helpful but I think in this day and age a modern interface should simply make sense, not kinda sorta make sense, and where's the logic? If I could understand the logic maybe I could follow it but the logic is buried deep within a software engineer's brain not to be shared in a 'logical' manner with the users. Which I think points to the problem. IMO software engineers should not get anywhere near a UI.

 

Is there video showing how each control works and is expected to behave? I've searched and never found one. Why is that? How can there be a floor in the crawl space? What's the minimum height of a stem wall when it behaves nothing like a minimum? WTF is a minimum garage height and why would one care? Set a default and watch it change unless you set all 3 or 4 defaults and then have some over ride others? Why? What's the plan? What's the logic? What are the defaults for? Someone tell me in a way that can simply be understood and maybe I'd have a small chance of understanding. I have a helper who is pretty bright and we continually get lost trying the simplest of floor/ceiling height tasks. Been using the program for almost 20 years and still have no idea why the words are what they are and why they mean something different than plain English.

Again the saddest part is there is not even a head fake of concern or the impetus to change the oldest most dated interface I've ever seen.

 

I do manage to get through every job but am angry and frustrated every time I need to do something even the least bit complicated. That's just not right in this day and age.

 

The rant above is in no way meant to disparage or diminish your helpful OP, it's just that I cannot take the crazy sometimes. [/rant]

 

[Richard_Morrison]

1 hour ago, HumbleChief said:

Is there video showing how each control works and is expected to behave? I've searched and never found one. Why is that?

Maybe https://www.chiefarchitect.com/videos/watch/72/additional-floors-foundation-basics.html

[HumbleChief]

That's a good video unless you want to really understand how the defaults effect the plan Scott was drawing. Without that you get nothing like what he ends up with. Of course one needs to understand defaults to understand Chief (it is mentioned @ 10:15 in the vid) but there 3 or 4 that effect the plan, some over riding another. Foundation; Floor/Ceiling platform; Current Floor; and Room Type defaults all effect different parameters. I've figured it out over the years but again the video is a perfect example about how the complexities of Chief can be glossed over to present what looks like a very easy to use, fun, automatic, piece of software.

 

Apologies starting now, as I've complained about the structure dbx for far too many years and far too many posts. Chief has no intention of changing same and I'll just muscle through as I need to and rant over.

 

Your help is always appreciated but I'm over trying to understand the logic behind Chief's structure dbx and beyond.

 

Again thanks for your help...

[BryceEngstrom]

I too noticed SOME improvement in this, but also agree it is and always has been very, very far from intuitive. I too just slog through every time on anything vaguely complex.  I have pretty much given up designating any room as a Garage.  Causes more problems that it solves.  And, in what world is 97-1/8" a standard rough ceiling height?  Is it just California where it has been 96-3/4" for all of the 30 years I have been working in residential design/construction?

[Alaskan_Son]

3 hours ago, BryceEngstrom said:

And, in what world is 97-1/8" a standard rough ceiling height?

 

Completely standard everywhere here in Alaska and in quite a few other areas of the country as well.  

[BryceEngstrom]

1 minute ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

Completely standard everywhere here in Alaska and  and quite a few other areas of the country as well.  

I guess I had to assume that.  Wonder why such large market wouldn't be more standardized.

[Alaskan_Son]

10 minutes ago, BryceEngstrom said:

I guess I had to assume that.  Wonder why such large market wouldn't be more standardized.

 

I assume it has something to do with regional differences in the way  structures are built and in the way rooms are finished.   That, and simple familiarity.   I’ve heard of standard 8’ stud lengths everywhere from 88” to 93”  but in my experience the vast majority are 92-5/8”.  

[Joe_Carrick]

92.625" (stud) + 4.5" (3 plates) - 0.625" (drywall) = 96.5" 

That allows for 2 sheets of drywall with 1/2" clearance to rough floor.  Sounds pretty standard to me. 

 

Typically, I just add 12" increments for higher ceilings, so studs are:

• 92.625   - nominal 8' ceiling
• 104.625 - nominal 9' ceiling
• 116.625 - nominal 10' ceiling
• 128.625 - nominal 11' ceiling
• 140.625 - nominal 12' ceiling

 

[Michael_Gia]

Pre-cut studs here come in 93-1/4” so with 3 plates = 97-3/4” for when you want an 8 foot ceiling.  

 

Or for 9’ ceiling we use pre-cut studs of 105-1/4” and then when you add 3 plates = 109-3/4” for a 9 foot ceiling. 

 

For 10 foot ceiling studs are cut at

117-1/4” from a 10’ stud, so ceilings are  121-3/4”. 

 

I thought this was standard across North America...

 

Isn't it?

[dshall]

If I am not mistaken,  I asked a framer to measure a stud on site and he measured 92.5",  thus an even 97" sill plate to top of wall height.

 

This was discussed several years ago.  

[Michael_Gia]

 I guess it’s a regional thing. 

 Price list from my supplier, behold… 

 

[Alaskan_Son]

9 minutes ago, Michael_Gia said:

 I guess it’s a regional thing. 

 Price list from my supplier, behold… 

 

 

 I’m curious, do you guys commonly add strapping/purlins  to your ceilings? 

[Michael_Gia]

3/4” furring, 16” on centre. 

[Alaskan_Son]

4 minutes ago, Michael_Gia said:

3/4” furring, 16” on centre. 

 

Yup, that’s what I suspected. That explains the extra stud length.   We almost never do any such thing around here so we don’t need that extra 3/4...ish.

[Michael_Gia]

Even underneath your roofing trusses? No strapping?

[VisualDandD]

In the southeast studs are standard at 93 in 105 in and 117 in.  

 

So walls are 8' 1 1/2".  9' 1 1/2". & 10' 1 1/2"

 

 

[Joe_Carrick]

15 minutes ago, VisualDandD said:

In the southeast studs are standard at 93 in 105 in and 117 in.  

 

So walls are 8' 1 1/2".  9' 1 1/2". & 10' 1 1/2"

 

 

That could be to deal with Masonry Exterior Walls.  If you have a wall 12 blocks high at 8" each (7.5"+1/2" mortar) with a 2x plate on top it would be 8' 1-1/2".

Masonry construction is much more common in the southeast than in the west.

[BryceEngstrom]

Only stud length for 8 ft. walls I have ever seen in 20 years of framing in California has been 92-1/4" + 4-1/2" of plates (one bottom, two top) gives you 96-3/4".  5/8" drywall lid leaves you just enough to get 2 - 48" wide drywall sheets stacked underneath so you have good bottom plate nailing.