How do I get roof to build on 9'-2" wall?

[Ed_Orum]

I have several walls in a certain model that are not standard 97-1/8" tall, which is the default room height for this plan.
When I go to build a roof over one exterior wall that is 9'-2" tall, the roof defaults to the 97-1/8" wall height.  I can raise it in the z axis to the right height, but why wont it build like you would expect it to build, on the top plate of the 9'-2" wall?

Thanks in advance,

Lane

[Chopsaw]

How did the wall get to be 9' 2" if the default room height is 97 1/8" ?    The roof uses the room height not the wall height.

[Ed_Orum]

I thought that might be it, but this room has two different "ceiling" heights, one at 97-1/8' and the other at 9'-2".  I tried to use a room divider but ever time I try to pinpoint the location, Chief knows better and puts it a little off from where I want it to go.
Maybe the framing contractors will be as smart as Chief, and built the entire roof at 97-1/8", then get a crane to raise it up while they tear down the 97-1/8" wall and put a new 9'2" wall underneath the roof.
But thanks, I was afraid that was how chief did things.  No imagination.  Or maybe hire some framers to write the program.

[Chopsaw]

Yes I know the feeling.  It is difficult enough to figure out how to build something just the way the client wants it to look and meet all the code requirements let alone a software program telling you it can't be done that way.

 

If you can get the room divider to behave by setting it's location with a dimension that would likely be the path of least resistance and  give you auto ceiling planes etc.

[robdyck]

30 minutes ago, Ed_Orum said:

but why wont it build like you would expect it to build, on the top plate of the 9'-2" wall?

This hasn't been my experience. If you can post the plan, I may be able to offer some suggestions.

[Ed_Orum]

Thanks!

Here it is.

08-06-2021 Gleason Front Entry.plan

[SNestor]

@Ed_Orum - 

I gave it a shot...the room divider worked for me.  Not sure I've done what you need...but take a look. The foundation walls were not aligned with the walls above...and the default reference layer set was weird so I modified it. I also changed the default "sun"...to be generic and sun follows camera. This helps when looking at 3D elevations etc.

 

GleasonFrontEntry - FIXED.plan

[Ed_Orum]

Steve, in the cross section, the  roof is still building at the 97-1/8" plate height.
I think the only way to fix it is to raise the roof to the desired plate height. 

Regards,

 

Lane De Muro

[rgardner]

2 hours ago, Ed_Orum said:

Steve, in the cross section, the  roof is still building at the 97-1/8" plate height.

 

 

I think you are going to need to communicate what you are seeing and looking for better.  It looks like everyone is guessing of what area you are talking about.  This is a simple cross section I pulled in Steve's plan with a dimension thrown in that shows a 110" Ceil Ht.

 

Can you help us and describe a little better what area and where you are seeing the 97 1/8" ceil. ht. and if that is wrong what do you want it to build at???  The plan seems to be building the model exactly as it is currently programmed so working properly.  Most likely you are looking for a different outcome.

[HumbleChief]

On 9/7/2021 at 10:04 AM, Ed_Orum said:

I have several walls in a certain model that are not standard 97-1/8" tall, which is the default room height for this plan.
When I go to build a roof over one exterior wall that is 9'-2" tall, the roof defaults to the 97-1/8" wall height.  I can raise it in the z axis to the right height, but why wont it build like you would expect it to build, on the top plate of the 9'-2" wall?

Thanks in advance,

Lane

Lots of good help here Lane as you've seen and another 2 cents. Simple note and hope it's not too obvious or repetitive but roofs will not build to 'wall heights' but they will build to 'room heights'. The 'room' is most likely defined at the 97 1/8 that the roof is building to. If you have "several walls in a certain model that are not standard 97-1/8" tall" they can only get there if you manually pull them up, or the 'room' is defined at that taller height. Pulling the walls up is never a very good practice with Chief, even though it can be intuitive to do so. Defining a 'room' to be taller is the paradigm Chief works with. If you can use that paradigm and always remember Chief is 'room' centric or 'room' dependent the program starts to make sense.

[Ed_Orum]

Larry, yes, I see Chief is single minded when it comes to wall heights.    The problem with this model is there are existing conditions which have to be duplicated on paper, so the field dimensions dictate what the drawing needs to show.  Chief is a good 2D program, and does a nice job of renderings, where it is all eye appeal but dimensional  accuracy is not necessary or important. I've been using Chief for about 20 years, and always hoped it would become more like the real world, and I have always though it was designed by programmers who "book learned" the construction business as opposed to real world construction knowledge.  But all in all, it does make me a pretty good part time income, so I am not complaining, just wishfully thinking of what a great program it could be.

[SNestor]

@Ed_Orum - 

Did you review the plan I attached. One room is 9'-2"...the other is 97.125. Took me all of about 5 seconds. 

Just FYI...I teach people how to use Chief...so, if interested contact me. I'd be happy to help you out with this...it's quite simple really.

 

See attached Sections from the plan I attached;

 

 

 

 

[Ed_Orum]

57 minutes ago, solver said:

Someone using Chief even part time for 20 years will understand the roof/wall/ceiling relationship. 

 

Has anyone helped? Did my video show the problem and a solution? 

 

What's wrong with simply raising the roof plane manually? You do seem to be using manual roof planes.

Thats what I did, raised it manually.

[HumbleChief]

8 hours ago, Ed_Orum said:

Larry, yes, I see Chief is single minded when it comes to wall heights.    The problem with this model is there are existing conditions which have to be duplicated on paper, so the field dimensions dictate what the drawing needs to show.  Chief is a good 2D program, and does a nice job of renderings, where it is all eye appeal but dimensional  accuracy is not necessary or important. I've been using Chief for about 20 years, and always hoped it would become more like the real world, and I have always though it was designed by programmers who "book learned" the construction business as opposed to real world construction knowledge.  But all in all, it does make me a pretty good part time income, so I am not complaining, just wishfully thinking of what a great program it could be.

Apologies as I saw the trial version on one video and thought you might have been a new user. Not sure what the problem was you were having but hope it got worked out. Also, as I remember, wishing Chief worked in a way it does not was always a sure formula for frustration.

[glennw]

1 hour ago, HumbleChief said:

The problem with this model is there are existing conditions which have to be duplicated on paper, so the field dimensions dictate what the drawing needs to show.  Chief is a good 2D program, and does a nice job of renderings, where it is all eye appeal but dimensional  accuracy is not necessary or important. I've been using Chief for about 20 years, and always hoped it would become more like the real world, and I have always though it was designed by programmers who "book learned" the construction business as opposed to real world construction knowledge.  But all in all, it does make me a pretty good part time income, so I am not complaining, just wishfully thinking of what a great program it could be.

 

If this is your opinion of Chief after using it fo 20 years, the my guess is that you have not learnt to use the program properly in that 20 years - especially when you say "where it is all eye appeal dimensional  accuracy is not necessary or important" just isn't correct.

Do you really believe that probably thousands of users use the program in any given day and rely on it's accuracy for both documentation and construction would do so if it wasn't accurate?

There is no reason why you shouldn't be easily able to duplicate existing conditions - you just need to learn how to use the program. 

[HumbleChief]

Just to be accurate - 10 hours ago, HumbleChief DID NOT say: Glenn's post above, but I was wondering the same thing. It's one thing to disagree with Chief's approach to software design, but to fight it for 20 years is another kettle of fish. How do I know? Because I've been fighting it for 20 years as well but have learned how Chief works and learned to work within that paradigm. Either way best of luck to the OP.

[glennw]

7 hours ago, HumbleChief said:

Just to be accurate - 10 hours ago, HumbleChief DID NOT say:

Sorry for that Larry.

I think I quoted a quote in your post.

[HumbleChief]

19 minutes ago, glennw said:

Sorry for that Larry.

I think I quoted a quote in your post.

Of course no problem Glenn, always appreciate your input...

[Ed_Orum]

On 9/11/2021 at 1:59 AM, glennw said:

 

If this is your opinion of Chief after using it fo 20 years, the my guess is that you have not learnt to use the program properly in that 20 years - especially when you say "where it is all eye appeal dimensional  accuracy is not necessary or important" just isn't correct.

Do you really believe that probably thousands of users use the program in any given day and rely on it's accuracy for both documentation and construction would do so if it wasn't accurate?

There is no reason why you shouldn't be easily able to duplicate existing conditions - you just need to learn how to use the program. 

You are correct, in 20 years I have not learned all of the ins and outs of the program.  I suspect that may be the case for others as well judging by the posts in this forum.
The program is in all likelihood better than I give it credit for being.  I still, after having built hundreds of houses, remodeled countless homes and drawn who knows how many plans cannot understand how a sill plate is part of a foundation, and not the frame.  I do not understand why the program switches a room divider which should be only the width of a single line into a 3-1/2" interior wall dimensions.  I still have trouble with generating lights, switches, anything electrical in an attic where there are no attic walls.  My real problem is I need to get the work done, and not find "workarounds" for what I would have thought were everyday situations.  I cannot understand why the dimensions reach things that are 8' away from where I am measuring even though the dimensions are set to locate things no more than 24" away.
But, a while back I decided it was not really necessary for me to understand completely how Chief works and my failing to understand its in depth workings.  I decided it was easier and more productive to get it as close as possible and then clean it up from there.  I am sure the program will generate each and every situation with only a click of a button (like the two sided arrow I cannot seem to find), but again, easier to understand what are  my limitations  than to take whatever time is necessary to completely learn the program.
This forum is great, I have learned a lot of things here, and I am sure I will continue to learn.  Everyone seems willing to help, and it seems like almost all of us have had some issues with Chief. 
I am truly happy that so may people have a better understanding of Chief than I do, and I sincerely thank each and every one of them for all of their help over the years, and in advance for the help I will ask for in the future.
 

[Kbird1]

1 hour ago, Ed_Orum said:

like the two sided arrow I cannot seem to find

 

Open a single headed arrow's DBX and click the box for Arrows on both ends... you can also turn a CAD line into a double headed arrow

 

    

[Ed_Orum]

Thanks, that's how I have been doing double headed arrows; I thought one may have been included with the program.
Is there a way to put my library stored two sided arrow into the pull down menu for lines?

 

[rgardner]

3 hours ago, Ed_Orum said:

Thanks, that's how I have been doing double headed arrows; I thought one may have been included with the program.
Is there a way to put my library stored two sided arrow into the pull down menu for lines?

 

You cannot place it in the Parent menu for Cad Lines but you can place any library item on your toolbar and move it right next to the line parent tool.

[Chopsaw]

24 minutes ago, rgardner said:

3 hours ago, Ed_Orum said:

Thanks, that's how I have been doing double headed arrows; I thought one may have been included with the program.
Is there a way to put my library stored two sided arrow into the pull down menu for lines?

 

You cannot place it in the Parent menu for Cad Lines but you can place any library item on your toolbar and move it right next to the line parent tool.

 

That it the type of thing we have been asking for to be able to customize the way the software works and yes it can be done  but there are always drawbacks such as not being able to add to the existing dropdown and having to cad block and then unblock the custom tool items.

[Kbird1]

4 hours ago, Ed_Orum said:

Thanks, that's how I have been doing double headed arrows; I thought one may have been included with the program.
Is there a way to put my library stored two sided arrow into the pull down menu for lines?

 

 

Not that I am aware of but you can add a Custom Icon to the toolbars with the Place Library Object Tool and assign the double headed arrow to it...

 

more info here :

 

https://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-00811/customizing-toolbars.html