How can I edit multiple roof planes at once?

[kylejmarsh]

When I multiple select roof planes, I am given the option to change their baseline height or their pitch, and nothing else. So I have to go into each roof plane and set it's fascia height individually - which stinks, partly because of CA's dialogue-box heavy interface. If I have to open up a dang dialog box, can't I at least have the option to override all and set the fascia and pitch or ridge and pitch, etc. for all the roof planes selected?

 

This is a larger part of the underlying issue, which is that CA needs to invest in a GUI redesign because this one is so clunky and cumbersome. Please Chief, please. Please.

 

 

[robdyck]

I'm sure it used to work that way, right? Especially important if you're dealing with multiple pitches that need the fascia aligned. Often I'll put the roof on a bit rough, tweak some things for appearance, then finalize the heights. Its kinda a PITA now. The dbx isn't really all that clear or intuitive with its reference to 'fascia' height, especially when most of us would probably be referencing the "sub-fascia" height. And wouldn't it be helpful if the overhang was dimensioned to the subfascia?

And I hate to say it, but that preview pane isn't great.

[VisualDandD]

I run into as well.  What I do is adjust one of a particular pitch and see what the baseline becomes.  Then I copy baseline.  Group select all simial pitches and change as one batch.

BUT I agree.  I use fascia top all the time primarily knowing I have room for my platform...etc.

[BenMerritt]

6 hours ago, robdyck said:

And I hate to say it, but that preview pane isn't great.

 

If you have any suggestions on what you'd like to see improved with it, I'd be happy to hear them. The diagram in its current form wasn't really designed to be a true "preview"; it's currently only useful as a rough guide to the meanings of the various height controls, which makes its value pretty limited for experienced users.

[VisualDandD]

I think the suggestion is this. (correct me if I am wrong).

 

If you open a single roof plan DBX you can lock say "pitch" and then adjust, baseline, or fascia or ridge ht...etc

 

If you select more than one roof plane, the only item you can adjust is baseline.

This is a pain when you want to say raise a bunch of roofs up a bit, or select several and make them all match as fascia ht...etc.

Wish the DBX (when selecting multiple roof planes) gave us the full selection of attributes to adjusts other than just 'baseline'

I have wished this for YEARS...but never said anything

[SNestor]

To raise roofs...I just group select and use Transform/Replicate.  To know exactly how much to raise or lower I wii take  a cross section.  
 

That said - it would be great if we could group select roof planes and make changes. 
 

I wish we could save roof assemblies in our user Library.  

[robdyck]

1 hour ago, SNestor said:

I wish we could save roof assemblies in our user Library.  

That'd be fantastic! Now that needs to be sent in as a feature request.

[SNestor]

44 minutes ago, robdyck said:

That'd be fantastic! Now that needs to be sent in as a feature request.

 

I think this has been requested many times...

 

 

[robdyck]

2 minutes ago, SNestor said:

 

I think this has been requested many times...

As have so many things. It'd be great if Chief had a method or procedure to let users know which parts of the program were up for a review, and could put together a panel or committee to hash out some of the details that would actually be implemented. I feel like its quite ineffective and maybe even pointless to repeat the same requests in the suggestions part of this forum or to submit feature requests in the beta testing with absolutely no idea if or when they might be implemented...in whole or in part.

Even if a feature is going to be implemented or tweaked, it seems like it could be helpful to know what, and when, and then have a formal process for input.

 

Lets take the preview pane of the roof dbx for example:  Its probably not all that helpful for me to spitball an idea for improvements and post it here or in suggestions when other users like yourself, or Eric or Michael or Joe (just to name a few) haven't also had a chance to pick apart or add their ideas and thoughts. Certainly, with a combined effort we could provide valuable enhancements. By contrast, weeding through a suggestion topic for the gold nuggets amidst a dog's breakfast isn't practical  or reasonable.

[SNestor]

I 

21 minutes ago, robdyck said:

As have so many things. It'd be great if Chief had a method or procedure to let users know which parts of the program were up for a review, and could put together a panel or committee to hash out some of the details that would actually be implemented. I feel like its quite ineffective and maybe even pointless to repeat the same requests in the suggestions part of this forum or to submit feature requests in the beta testing with absolutely no idea if or when they might be implemented...in whole or in part.

Even if a feature is going to be implemented or tweaked, it seems like it could be helpful to know what, and when, and then have a formal process for input.

 

Lets take the preview pane of the roof dbx for example:  Its probably not all that helpful for me to spitball an idea for improvements and post it here or in suggestions when other users like yourself, or Eric or Michael or Joe (just to name a few) haven't also had a chance to pick apart or add their ideas and thoughts. Certainly, with a combined effort we could provide valuable enhancements. By contrast, weeding through a suggestion topic for the gold nuggets amidst a dog's breakfast isn't practical  or reasonable.

 

I recently was viewing a webinar being hosted by a software company that is probably slightly larger than CA...but a much younger company, probably not more than 6-8 years old.  During their presentation - the webinar host displayed a page that they host that is open to all subscribers/users of their software.  This page showed a long list of feature improvements that were in some stage of development...and where the feature was in the queue. Along the right side of the list was the "status" of each improvement.  Some features were listed as "coming soon"...others were listed as "in development" and others were listed as "proposed".  

 

I think if Chief gave us something like this at least we would know what they think we want or need in the software.  Maybe we could "vote" on things listed as "proposed".  Not sure how to implement this idea...but, something would be better than nothing...which is what we have now. 

 

Also...Chief should just scrap the stair tool and start over.  Just sayin'....

 

[GeneDavis]

It is logical to me why you can’t get full edit control of multiple roofs in some circumstances.

 

Every roof has a RUN.  In plan view you DRAW it by the drag after the baseline drag.  The DBX dialog gives us the ability to edit either VERTICAL POSITION of the plane (by locking pitch) or its ROTATION &  VERTICAL POSITION.

 

But no DBX edit of run is permitted.

 

Look at it.  Nothing you do in the DBX changes the plan view of the roof you are editing.  So it is perfectly understandable why the only roofs you can multiple select and have full height and rotational editing control for are those with everything equal including RUN.

 

And that is the way it should be.

[kylejmarsh]

7 hours ago, SNestor said:

I wish we could save roof assemblies in our user Library.

 

That would be awesome - good suggestion.

 

1 hour ago, GeneDavis said:

 

 

And that is the way it should be.

 

Gene I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on this one

[kylejmarsh]

4 hours ago, robdyck said:

Lets take the preview pane of the roof dbx for example:  Its probably not all that helpful for me to spitball an idea for improvements and post it here or in suggestions when other users like yourself, or Eric or Michael or Joe (just to name a few) haven't also had a chance to pick apart or add their ideas and thoughts. Certainly, with a combined effort we could provide valuable enhancements. By contrast, weeding through a suggestion topic for the gold nuggets amidst a dog's breakfast isn't practical  or reasonable.

 

This has the root of a very valuable suggestion. I usually don't post on this forum much anymore because i don't feel like my suggestions, which are pretty good (though nothing as good as alaskan son or others) but I get no indication of if they'll ever be implemented.

 

Some kind of running list, where we could vote on items, would be awesome. I put forward a similar kind of idea where we could all chip in some money on the ones we wanted the most, to potentially buy some hours from a programmer to get this stuff fixed. I would gladly pay some $$ for some of these items, especially if it means the difference of getting it next release or in 3 years... I can make my SSA subscription with just a couple billable hours, it stands to reason that if Chief could save me a couple more hours a year I would give them a bigger chunk of cash... 

[GeneDavis]

Do a little test.  It's quick and easy.  Draw a new rectangular floor plan, divide it into three by drawing two interior walls, then set each room at different heights.  They are all set to default at first, so just change two.

 

Now manually draw a little roof plane over an outside wall of each room.  Make sure the run of each is different.  Change two of the three to have differing pitches from default.  Now you have three absolutely different roof planes,  Each has a unique pitch, a unique run (the 2D length from baseline to ridge), unique fascia heights, and since we are in 12, we are looking at the shadowboard top height also.  In this test, since we've not placed shadowboards, that field is blank.

 

OK, select all three, and study the DBX and how things work. Tell us how you want Chief to work for you, different from how it works now.

[VisualDandD]

 

 

0

 Advanced issue found

▲

 

 

6 minutes ago, GeneDavis said:

 

 

Gene

 

I am a +1000 for the original suggestion.   I have been using Chief for 20+ years.   I know how to use the program.

I think being able to edit multiple roof plane dbx with functions other than just baseline would be a FANTASTIC improvement.

 

 

[VisualDandD]

Sorry....not sure why the quote is messing up?.... It wont let me edit either?   

[Kbird1]

18 minutes ago, VisualDandD said:

Sorry....not sure why the quote is messing up?.... It wont let me edit either?   

 

Been having a few issues with it myself this morning ---Server maintenance maybe being Sunday?

[GeneDavis]

Do my little three-roof-plane test.  Work with Chief as it is and select all three and edit what you can.  Try everything, because you do have editing capabilites.  How you edit opens up other fields for edit.  Go back and do it differently.  Observe results.

 

Now tell us how you want it to work that is different.  Be specific.

 

The roof planes in this test are like three postage stamps, three different sizes, all pitched, in 3D space.  Chief gives us control of their pitch by letting us fix either the ridge, the baseline, or the fascia top as the pivot, and then having fixed that, change the pitch.  Chief also gives us control of the plane by us specifying the z-height (elevation) of any two of the pivot lines (ridge, baseline, fascia top), in which case Chief computes and returns the pitch stated in x/12 or degrees.

 

Chief's editing, when we group select or multi-select roof planes, is consistent with what we see presently, because we get all the possible editing capability we can have for COMMON edits of planes which are dissimilar in various ways. Solver showed clearly how differently it works when selecting two planes with common runs, versus selecting planes with differing runs.

 

But hey, maybe I am wrong and not seeing what you see.  Show me.  Be specific.

[VisualDandD]

1 hour ago, GeneDavis said:

Do my little three-roof-plane test.  Work with Chief as it is and select all three and edit what you can.  Try everything, because you do have editing capabilites.  How you edit opens up other fields for edit.  Go back and do it differently.  Observe results.

 

Now tell us how you want it to work that is different.  Be specific.

 

The roof planes in this test are like three postage stamps, three different sizes, all pitched, in 3D space.  Chief gives us control of their pitch by letting us fix either the ridge, the baseline, or the fascia top as the pivot, and then having fixed that, change the pitch.  Chief also gives us control of the plane by us specifying the z-height (elevation) of any two of the pivot lines (ridge, baseline, fascia top), in which case Chief computes and returns the pitch stated in x/12 or degrees.

 

Chief's editing, when we group select or multi-select roof planes, is consistent with what we see presently, because we get all the possible editing capability we can have for COMMON edits of planes which are dissimilar in various ways. Solver showed clearly how differently it works when selecting two planes with common runs, versus selecting planes with differing runs.

 

But hey, maybe I am wrong and not seeing what you see.  Show me.  Be specific.

 DId your little exercise and it only showed me why the suggestion of the topic would be GREATLY appreciated.

 

See radio buttons for Fascia are NOT available.    Lets say I did not care about my room heights and wanted to take a cut-up plan with various pitches and align all my fascia.  You cant do it.  Only baseline can be adjusted across multiple suggestions.

Not sure what you are not seeing.

 

[robdyck]

On 4/3/2020 at 7:24 PM, BenMerritt said:

 

If you have any suggestions on what you'd like to see improved with it, I'd be happy to hear them. The diagram in its current form wasn't really designed to be a true "preview"; it's currently only useful as a rough guide to the meanings of the various height controls, which makes its value pretty limited for experienced users.

I'll see if I can put something proper together, but I'll quickly point out the most obvious nuisances as it pertains to fascia height. I assume no one would be looking at the finish material for fascia as a specification for the elevation of a roof, but rather the sub-fascia. In the example below, I'd like to specify that the 2x6 sub-fascia align with the main floor ceiling so that the truss bottom chord can run over the wall and out to the fascia. Steps:

-edit all roof planes

-lock roof pitch

-specify top of fascia as (109.125 + 5.5)

-results with fascia top of 114 5/8" .....right?

-Heck No. It's lower by the vertical distance of the roof sheathing even though the roof sheathing is in the surface layers, not structure layers.

 

 

Now try moving the roof planes vertically that exact amount...which for my 6:12  pitch roof is 0.4891398701". To get that, I draw a polyline in section view that snaps to the correct cross section lines, and copy the vertical dimension. Now I can replicate all the roofs in the z-axis.

I hereby submit for consideration by all: that is completely ridiculous!

[Kbird1]

3 hours ago, robdyck said:

I assume no one would be looking at the finish material for fascia as a specification for the elevation of a roof, but rather the sub-fascia

 

Methinks doth may assume too much  

 

 

     

 

 

[glennw]

Ok.

I just revisited this thread, particularly Eric's video near the beginning.

He was having trouble getting some roof edit fields available when he selected 2 roof planes (before he changed the width of the room).

This should be the expected behavior because he is selecting 2 roofs that have different ridge heights - it may not look like it in the 3D view, but they must be different heights because the spans of the 2 wings are different.

The roof at the rear will have a different ridge height because it will need to extend a tiny amount (a little V) to tie in with the ridge of the front roofs.

If the ridge heights are different, you cannot use the dbx to change their ridge heights.

In the exaggerated plan below, you can plainly see that the ridge height for the main front roof is at the normal ridge line height.

The ridge height for the rear roof is at the top of the small V, which is equal to the front ridge height.

This is why the ridge height becomes available when both wings of the floor plan are equal - the ridge heights are then the same.

Try selecting the 2 smaller front roofs and the rear roof.

Because they both have the same ridge heights, that choice becomes available for edit in the dbx.