Setting Stem Wall Height in Build Foundation dbx...?

[Chopsaw]

Nice work Steve.  Unfortunately It seems you have identified a bug. Not sure why the foundation would build to default if none of the rooms are set to default.  I realize the program generally runs smoother when everything is set to default but why have an override if it does not work.  It might be something that should be sent in.  Possibly Michael's solution just allows the override to work but then the minimum setting makes no sense.

[HumbleChief]

10 hours ago, SNestor said:

 

Larry...

You have the default floor joists set to be 11-7/8" I-Joist.  But...when you framed the building you set the joists to 5-1/2" lumber.  (I don't think the material type has anything to do with this...) 

This seems to be the problem.

 

Go into your floor defaults and change the default joist to 5-1/2" lumber and rebuild your foundation and you will see everything works.  OR...set you floor DBX joist to use the "default" joist.

Thanks Steve, I think that was exactly the issue. Hopefully I can remember for the future. Thanks again!!

 

JUST saw your video and want to thank you again for your help, again exactly the problem, and solution...

[HumbleChief]

8 hours ago, Chopsaw said:

Not sure why the foundation would build to default if none of the rooms are set to default...

Yeah that's a little weird as if the default is over riding the room setting, which Chief will sometimes do and sometimes not and perhaps that was my expectation? Either way really appreciate all the help and know where to look next time...

[SNestor]

1 hour ago, HumbleChief said:

Yeah that's a little weird as if the default is over riding the room setting, which Chief will sometimes do and sometimes not and perhaps that was my expectation? Either way really appreciate all the help and know where to look next time...

 

It is weird.  I think Chief guru's might want to think about limiting the number of places you can edit the floor joist size...it's crazy.  You can set them in "defaults"...in the floor DBX and in the room DBX.  Why?  

 

That said...I still wish they would improve the stair tool...my biggest bug-a-boo with Chief

[Alaskan_Son]

3 hours ago, SNestor said:

 

It is weird.  I think Chief guru's might want to think about limiting the number of places you can edit the floor joist size...it's crazy.  You can set them in "defaults"...in the floor DBX and in the room DBX.  Why? 

 

First things first, it's important to understand the hierarchy...

• Floor and Ceiling Platform Defaults are the king default.  Every other Default checkbox while in your default settings can refer back to this setting
• Floor Level Defaults can refer to the Floor and Ceiling Platform Defaults or they can be set independently.  This can be useful when you have multiple floors that are using the same floor structure and one or more that are using a unique floor structure.
• Room Type Defaults can refer to the Floor Level Defaults or they can be set independently.  This is the reason we can have a Patio room type that will always produce a 4" slab.  This is also useful because it is the reason why any other room type can be set to obey the floor structure as set for the current floor (which may obviously vary from one floor to the next).
• Rooms themselves can refer to the Room Type Defaults or they can be set independently in plan.  The benefits of this should go without saying (i.e. we need to be able to set any given room differently than the rest).

I would argue that there is no logical default setting to get rid of.  Once you fully understand the chain of command, I think you'll probably conclude as I have that every level of control makes a lot of sense and if you use the defaults properly, it can make for very quick and efficient modeling and more specifically...future changes to that model.

[Michael_Gia]

I personally would like to have Chief expand the Storyplole Dialogue Box with a Tab to set your various “floor levels” where you can set the 0” level for whichever level you want. Let this be the only place in the software where you can do this. 

Then every other item’s level is determined by the level it references along with its offset up or down from that level. 

 

I think the Storypole is the best new feature in Chief in a while. 

[HumbleChief]

2 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

First things first, it's important to understand the hierarchy...

• Floor and Ceiling Platform Defaults are the king default.  Every other Default checkbox while in your default settings can refer back to this setting
• Floor Level Defaults can refer to the Floor and Ceiling Platform Defaults or they can be set independently.  This can be useful when you have multiple floors that are using the same floor structure and one or more that are using a unique floor structure.
• Room Type Defaults can refer to the Floor Level Defaults or they can be set independently.  This is the reason we can have a Patio room type that will always produce a 4" slab.  This is also useful because it is the reason why any other room type can be set to obey the floor structure as set for the current floor (which may obviously vary from one floor to the next).
• Rooms themselves can refer to the Room Type Defaults or they can be set independently in plan.  The benefits of this should go without saying (i.e. we need to be able to set any given room differently than the rest).

I would argue that there is no logical default setting to get rid of.  Once you fully understand the chain of command, I think you'll probably conclude as I have that every level of control makes a lot of sense and if you use the defaults properly, it can make for very quick and efficient modeling and more specifically...future changes to that model.

Most likely an accurate analysis and am trying to think of a way to make Chief's system of defaults more complicated and less easy to understand but simply cannot. Perhaps the complexity is needed to create the most powerful options within the software, or Chief just really doesn't know or care to know how to simplify the interface and operations for their user base. I get the strong feeling that the software engineers, and those who think along similar lines, have no problem with the built in complexity and perhaps prefer it. I do not, and think there's quite a bit of laziness built in to the system that preserves that complexity at the expense of easier understanding and a simpler approach within the interface.

 

A very simple but illustrative example. When setting the stem wall height the user is forced to use a calculation to determine the actual stem wall height. Yes it's only adding 1 1/2" for the sill plate but in my opinion that calculation should be completely hidden from the user. Again in my opinion, it's lazy interface programming to expose the user to the need to do unnecessary calculations in their heads when entering data in to a dbx.

 

In this case that calculation would be completely unnecessary if the software did the work in the background (which could be argued is the job of software) . Enter the actual stem wall height, the software uses the sill plate depth, which exists on another tab, and figures it out WITHOUT the user having to do the work. Instead the user needs to do a calculation to get the stem wall correct, which again might be the preferable method for those who like that approach but why add that layer of complexity for the user? Someone is making that decision.

 

"But it's only adding 1 1/2" to a basic value please get over yourself,"  but that's not the point. The point is that the programmers place the work of the software, which is to do that calculation, on the user. Not a great GUI philosophy in my opinion and this same attitude can be seen throughout Chief.

 

Some would argue, and certainly will, that the complexity adds power to the software which it certainly does, but why not do both? Why can't we have the power and a simpler way to get to that power? Really, why not?

[DRAWZILLA]

One little tip I do is instead of a slab floor in that crawl space I make the slab 1/16 inch thick and use a dirt material so it shows up in the sections. this makes it a lot easier to get your 18" min. in that underfloor area. Then in that room adjust the height to whatever you want .

[SNestor]

9 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

First things first, it's important to understand the hierarchy...

• Floor and Ceiling Platform Defaults are the king default.  Every other Default checkbox while in your default settings can refer back to this setting
• Floor Level Defaults can refer to the Floor and Ceiling Platform Defaults or they can be set independently.  This can be useful when you have multiple floors that are using the same floor structure and one or more that are using a unique floor structure.
• Room Type Defaults can refer to the Floor Level Defaults or they can be set independently.  This is the reason we can have a Patio room type that will always produce a 4" slab.  This is also useful because it is the reason why any other room type can be set to obey the floor structure as set for the current floor (which may obviously vary from one floor to the next).
• Rooms themselves can refer to the Room Type Defaults or they can be set independently in plan.  The benefits of this should go without saying (i.e. we need to be able to set any given room differently than the rest).

I would argue that there is no logical default setting to get rid of.  Once you fully understand the chain of command, I think you'll probably conclude as I have that every level of control makes a lot of sense and if you use the defaults properly, it can make for very quick and efficient modeling and more specifically...future changes to that model.

 

Michael's post is right on...as always.  I made a video to supplement my first video...not sure if it really helps that much.  Maybe it'll help someone....couple new things covered.

 

 

[Michael_Gia]

Great video as usual but I always set my stemwall height by controlling the rough ceiling height of the room below.

To have the most control I always set my minimum stemwall height to 0. 

Of course this is because I’m up here in the far north where we always build foundations at a minimum of 54” below grade. 

[SNestor]

8 hours ago, Michael_Gia said:

Great video as usual but I always set my stemwall height by controlling the rough ceiling height of the room below.

To have the most control I always set my minimum stemwall height to 0. 

Of course this is because I’m up here in the far north where we always build foundations at a minimum of 54” below grade. 

 

Just curious.  If you know you that your foundation walls will always be at least 48” tall...why not just set your minimum stemwall height to be 48”?   Wouldn’t that save you a step?  

 

You wouldn’t have to open the room DBX and set the height?

[Michael_Gia]

It’s to avoid having my footings pushed down below the footing level of the rest of my basement when I drop my garage floor for example. Sure I could set it at some arbitrary low number to avoid that but 0 is the lowest and avoids any issues. I use the rough ceiling height which is easier to calculate and predict. This goes back to OP’s original video showing that unwanted gap in stemwall height which he could’ve avoided. I’ve yet to see a practical reason to have a minimum stemwall height except for you guys in warmer climates who build slab foundations and want that. But even then I would have a room below and use rough ceiling height. Just makes more sense to me. 

[HumbleChief]

11 hours ago, SNestor said:

Michael's post is right on...as always.

Agreed, but the conversation continues to ignore the built in, intentional, complexity, that, making a point above, many users do not mind and me thinks actually prefer as this thread I think illustrates.

 

M_Gia even made the point above that

2 hours ago, Michael_Gia said:

I use the rough ceiling height which is easier to calculate and predict.

Why do we have to calculate anything? That's the software's job IMO but again Chief users don't seem to mind. I mind a lot, but the complexity rules the day and the simplicity that could be incorporated in to the interface, without sacrificing and power, is simply ignored. Something I've learned to live with, with the software and most users on this forum at least, who simply do not find that important.

 

EDIT: I can clearly see the benefits of some of Chief's complexity and the options it affords the user but think there are areas that can be improved...

[HumbleChief]

11 hours ago, SNestor said:

 

Michael's post is right on...as always.  I made a video to supplement my first video...not sure if it really helps that much.  Maybe it'll help someone....couple new things covered.

 

 

GREAT video Steve! Thanks for taking the time to post, clarifies some issues for me...

[HumbleChief]

So I'm thinking regarding that first video, the first step is going to the defaults and make sure things are correct there, then frame build foundation etc. The thing I never really saw in the defaults dbx (illustrated in Steve's video, and I assume in Michael's post re: defaults) is what might be considered a top down (as the list reads) priority for the default settings, for everything foundation/framing related.

[Chrisb222]

On 5/3/2019 at 2:36 PM, Alaskan_Son said:

 

First things first, it's important to understand the hierarchy...

• Floor and Ceiling Platform Defaults are the king default.  Every other Default checkbox while in your default settings can refer back to this setting
• Floor Level Defaults can refer to the Floor and Ceiling Platform Defaults or they can be set independently.  This can be useful when you have multiple floors that are using the same floor structure and one or more that are using a unique floor structure.
• Room Type Defaults can refer to the Floor Level Defaults or they can be set independently.  This is the reason we can have a Patio room type that will always produce a 4" slab.  This is also useful because it is the reason why any other room type can be set to obey the floor structure as set for the current floor (which may obviously vary from one floor to the next).
• Rooms themselves can refer to the Room Type Defaults or they can be set independently in plan.  The benefits of this should go without saying (i.e. we need to be able to set any given room differently than the rest).

I would argue that there is no logical default setting to get rid of.  Once you fully understand the chain of command, I think you'll probably conclude as I have that every level of control makes a lot of sense and if you use the defaults properly, it can make for very quick and efficient modeling and more specifically...future changes to that model.

 

Well stated.