Anyone know room structure heights really well....I don't, 12yrs and I still don't.

[Kbird1]

6 minutes ago, builtright3 said:

 

I love this protractor diagram!

I printed it and posted it on the wall in front of me to help me get a visual as I'm working on my plan.

Thank you Michael also for starting this example with your diagram!

 

Your Welcome , I thought it might help those of use that think like Builders rather than Engineers (or Lighting Designers)

 

For Others ....If you missed it the Diagram is here : LINK

 

 

[glennw]

8 hours ago, HumbleChief said:

Now on to more important things..are you getting any of that cyclone swell? The coast looks lit up and crazy for the past few days - jealous...

Larry,

I am in Sydney and the big swells are in southern Queensland - further north than us.

 

On the Structure dbx....I agree with the others....I think you have found a bug, which is not good when you are already struggling.

[HumbleChief]

Are you sure that's not you at about the 1:03 mark??

 

 

 

[HumbleChief]

23 hours ago, builtright3 said:

Also, I don't know that I understood in full starting at the top. I'm assuming that the floor above effects the floor below but not visa-versa. Is that a correct statement?

Here's what I've discovered. There's no reason to start at the top and work your way down in Chief UNLESS you are trying to correct floor height problems in a model which usually includes inconsistent floor heights on an upper level. If the model is correct from the beginning, and continues to remain correct, a user can work from the bottom up, top down, makes no difference in my experience.

[Richard_Morrison]

11 hours ago, HumbleChief said:

Here's what I've discovered. There's no reason to start at the top and work your way down in Chief UNLESS you are trying to correct floor height problems in a model which usually includes inconsistent floor heights on an upper level. If the model is correct from the beginning, and continues to remain correct, a user can work from the bottom up, top down, makes no difference in my experience.

I think I agree with you. I've spent a bunch of time today trying to understand the structure DBX, and I don't know exactly what's changed, but the top down approach used to make sense, but now I can't remember why.

 

However, the way the floor and ceiling heights work make no sense to me currently. Suppose you have a two-story house with 8' ceilings on both floors. Now your client comes to you and says they want a 9' ceiling on the first floor. Logically, you'd think that raising the ceiling on the first floor would just raise everything above it by a foot. But, NOOO..... The top of the 2nd floor wall stays where it is, and you end up with a 9' first floor and a 7' second floor, then you have to go to the second floor and raise the ceiling by a foot there, too. I'm sure this is all incredibly involved for the programmers, but I'm just not seeing any normal logic here or anything intuitive at all!

[Kbird1]

43 minutes ago, solver said:

 

Set the 1st floor default to 9' and all the rooms using the default ceiling height will change, pushing up the entire 2nd floor.

 

 

 

This is my experience too , are you doing it some other Way Richard , eg using the Match properties Tool perhaps?

 

M.

 

[builtright3]

I had an issue where I had to change the first floor from 8' to 9' and I had to rebuild my roof because it would not move. Auto roofs are easy to rebuild but it was all manually built because it was not a typical roof design.

[lbuttery]

I would expect by now that we should be able to use the "edit area" tool to select an entire floor and

then select "raise ceiling" and set new height to 9'

 

behind the scenes Chief should know how to do all the steps that we need to do manually

 

IOW - it can be done manually so why can't it be automated to happen auto-magically ?

 

if there are 9 rooms on that floor the "edit area" marquee could be used to select 5 of those rooms

and they would raise 1' and the other 4 would stay at 8'

 

Chief knows where "everything" is already at - just do it

 

Lew

[Richard_Morrison]

1 hour ago, solver said:

 

Set the 1st floor default to 9' and all the rooms using the default ceiling height will change, pushing up the entire 2nd floor.

But this is true ONLY if the rooms have default values. Works fine with all rooms on a floor at the same height, not so well with split levels.

[builtright3]

1 hour ago, solver said:

 

Sounds like the roof just needed to move up a foot, so selecting the roof planes and Transform/Replicate to move.

Yes, that was a thought but I had to move some walls also so I rebuilt it.

Good point though Eric!

Its not hard to raise the roof even if it is manually built.

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by builtright3
Clarification

[Kbird1]

57 minutes ago, Richard_Morrison said:

But this is true ONLY if the rooms have default values. Works fine with all rooms on a floor at the same height, not so well with split levels.

 

Many Defaults can/could be Reset with Edit>Reset to Defaults 1st , though I guess that could mess things up too....

 

[Richard_Morrison]

16 minutes ago, Kbird1 said:

 

Many Defaults can/could be Reset with Edit>Reset to Defaults 1st , though I guess that could mess things up too....

 

You know, in the many years I have been using the program I have never clicked on that menu item before, and was surprised to see a bunch of checkboxes I have never seen. Thank you!

[HumbleChief]

8 hours ago, Richard_Morrison said:

You know, in the many years I have been using the program I have never clicked on that menu item before, and was surprised to see a bunch of checkboxes I have never seen. Thank you!

I also had no idea that menu item was there. Went through that crazy match properties exercise on that plan in the other this thread, went back to the plan checked the floor and ceiling heights and it was done - every floor. Wow, still learning in spite of myself...

[HumbleChief]

11 hours ago, Richard_Morrison said:

However, the way the floor and ceiling heights work make no sense to me currently. Suppose you have a two-story house with 8' ceilings on both floors. Now your client comes to you and says they want a 9' ceiling on the first floor. Logically, you'd think that raising the ceiling on the first floor would just raise everything above it by a foot. But, NOOO..... The top of the 2nd floor wall stays where it is, and you end up with a 9' first floor and a 7' second floor, then you have to go to the second floor and raise the ceiling by a foot there, too. I'm sure this is all incredibly involved for the programmers, but I'm just not seeing any normal logic here or anything intuitive at all!

This kinda makes a point I've been suggesting - that one man's logic is another man's crazy. The trick is to try and get your personal crazy to match the 'logic' that Chief built in, or the other way around. Once understood it gets easier. May never make sense or seem 'logical' as in my case and maybe yours as well Richard but once learned can be used to get some plans out the door...as crazy as some of the steps seem...

[HumbleChief]

11 hours ago, Richard_Morrison said:

I think I agree with you. I've spent a bunch of time today trying to understand the structure DBX, and I don't know exactly what's changed, but the top down approach used to make sense, but now I can't remember why.

Exactly my experience as well. I went back to prove the top down theory to myself and it wasn't needed. For we as well it "used to make sense, but now I can't remember why." Oh well, old dog, and all that stuff...

[builtright3]

10 hours ago, Kbird1 said:

 

Many Defaults can/could be Reset with Edit>Reset to Defaults 1st , though I guess that could mess things up too....

 

What is "Roof directives in walls" mean? I understand what a directive is but I don"t understand what it does with the walls to the roof.

[Alaskan_Son]

4 minutes ago, builtright3 said:

What is "Roof directives in walls" mean? I understand what a directive is but I don"t understand what it does with the walls to the roof.

 

3 minutes ago, solver said:

 

Pitch, hip, gable ...

 

Yep...all this stuff...

 

[Kbird1]

2 hours ago, HumbleChief said:

This kinda makes a point I've been suggesting - that one man's logic is another man's crazy. The trick is to try and get your personal crazy to match the 'logic' that Chief built in, or the other way around. Once understood it gets easier. May never make sense or seem 'logical' as in my case and maybe yours as well Richard but once learned can be used to get some plans out the door...as crazy as some of the steps seem...

 

Funny Larry , thanks for the BFG    it's true however sad it is ...especially if , like you and I, come from the Building side of the game and CA just doesn't do or even call things the Industry norm...even harder when you also have to learn all the Idahoan Terms for things . As Michael has mentioned a few times you have to "let go" and not fight the Software cos we "think" it should work a particular way.

Even after 10+ years now I still find myself saying ... "WTF..why would they do it like that "

[Renerabbitt]

My biggest elevation dbx gripe...try and build a mono slab with no curbs and a 36" tall "stem wall"- most frustrating thing I've ever come across.

I'll save you some pain- it won't be monolithic

[Alaskan_Son]

4 minutes ago, Renerabbitt said:

My biggest elevation dbx gripe...try and build a mono slab with no curbs and a 36" tall "stem wall"- most frustrating thing I've ever come across.

I'll save you some pain- it won't be monolithic

 

Not sure I’m following because the answer seems too easy, but have you tried simply increasing the height of your footers to 36”?

[Renerabbitt]

12 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

Not sure I’m following because the answer seems too easy, but have you tried simply increasing the height of your footers to 36”?

yes, cept for that this particular foundation will also have footers and shouldn't be a solution...not to mention increasing them does not show in the dbx. graphically, so how is a user supposed to determined that the method worked without pulling a 3d view...unless I am mistaken

[HumbleChief]

2 hours ago, Renerabbitt said:

My biggest elevation dbx gripe...try and build a mono slab with no curbs and a 36" tall "stem wall"- most frustrating thing I've ever come across.

I've been making this point for YEARS. Someone with your computer skills should NOT find building a mono slab as you described  - "most frustrating thing [you've] ever come across."

 

Should you learn the software? Of course. Should it be easy to learn? Not necessarily, but it should not be so difficult as to cause so many users so much frustration.

 

I am not the sharpest tool in the shed and have been using computers since 1989 ish - 30 years - and have used Chief for 20 years - in all those years with many, many software programs I have NEVER felt more stupid and wasted more time than when I try and figure out Chief's structure DBX.

 

There's absolutely no ROI in Chief changing it, and no reason for them to mollify a few forum users, but it will remain, at least to me, the worst user interface I've ever encountered, in any piece of software, ever.

[builtright3]

On 2/25/2019 at 9:35 AM, Alaskan_Son said:

 

 

Yep...all this stuff...

 

Simple! Thank you!

[dshall]

On 2/25/2019 at 10:23 AM, Renerabbitt said:

My biggest elevation dbx gripe...try and build a mono slab with no curbs and a 36" tall "stem wall"- most frustrating thing I've ever come across.

I'll save you some pain- it won't be monolithic

 

Rene,  would you mind posting a pic of what you are trying to do....  maybe a hand sketch if you can't build it.

 

 

[Renerabbitt]

4 minutes ago, dshall said:

 

Rene,  would you mind posting a pic of what you are trying to do....  maybe a hand sketch if you can't build it.

 

 

I know we went over this in a post a long while back..I just feel as if it should be possible in the room/foundation dbx instead of doing workarounds.

 pic is fuzzy, sorry