Why not have all the roof plane elevations colinear?

[GeneDavis]

A roof plane spec always has sheathing thickness, and a fascia hxw, even if we try to zero it (Chief'll make it 1/16x1/16).

 

So why not have the two elevations, baseline height, and ridge height, be to top of sheathing, as it is for fascia height?

 

I often do a CAD or 3D workup of basic mass and shape before drawing in Chief,    and the roof plane lines and edges are far easier to sketch in when those points are colinear.

[robdyck]

There was a time, many years ago when Chief's Fascia Tope referenced the top of the sub-fascia. I think that was x7. The inconsistency of referencing framing elevations for some points and finish elevations for other points has been brought up often, in suggestions as well as in feature requests.

This current system really gets weird when you have multiple pitches that should have the same sub-fascia elevation. It's not cool...but I got used to referencing the baseline height whereas I used (again many years ago) always reference the fascia height...it was just more familiar to me. I also don't like that roof planes measure to the finished fascia instead of to the sub-fascia. 

[robdyck]

3 hours ago, GeneDavis said:

So why not have the two elevations, baseline height, and ridge height, be to top of sheathing

For the same reason that walls are measured to framing...which of course we can choose in our wall type spec. Oh wait!! How about the same type of choice for a roof assembly? Now we're talking! For you it might be sheathing. For me it would always be framing. 3 key elevation points:

1. top of sub-fascia
2. baseline elevation
3. ridge elevation

And please, don't measure to the aluminum strip of fascia that covers the sub-fascia in 99% of north american homes. Ok it might only be 97%...