Pitch Marks vs roof labels

[winterdd]

Just curious if any of you use roof labels for your elevations instead of manually placing pitch marks. It sure does save a step on all elevations and cross sections but is it normal? I have always added pitch marks but like I said just curious.

 

[Chopsaw]

Those labels are way too easy to get lost.  I use pitch label cad blocks and usually elevate them above the roof line or use solid fill so they are quite noticeable.

[BenPalmer]

How nice it would be to have automatic labels for the pitch marks ... yes please! 

[GeneDavis]

I've come around from annotating it on elevations, to doing a roof plan view with every plane labeled for pitch, and enough 3D for the builder to see what is to be done.  I leave it off the 2D elevations.

 

I think owner's don't care much about the numbers, but focus instead on the look.  Steep.  Flat.  Flatter.  Whatever.

 

The roof cutter or the truss designer needs the pitches, so it's there in the roof plan, and I put it in the whole-building section views.

[winterdd]

sounds like I should stay with my pitch marks I created in my library.

[winterdd]

2 hours ago, BenPalmer said:

How nice it would be to have automatic labels for the pitch marks ... yes please! 

And automatic eave heights from story pole dims.

[VHampton]

Apparently, this is a feature w/ another software.

 

It would be great if CA could consider.

 

Without naming the the product... it's called: the "spot slope annotation". 

 

Elevations will show the roof slope triangle.

 

Over the years I've saved almost every CAD slope triangle in the user library, so no big deal.

 

But as new bells and whistles are inevitably going to make their debut, this one more tool in the tool box would be very handy indeed. 

 

Thanks for suggesting Rob. 

 

[SHCanada2]

I use one pitch cad block on the front elevation, if all pitches are the same andvthats it. The roof plan view is quite nice with its pitches and artows, it's also where I dimension the eave. I don't dimension eaves on elevations.

 

Biggest problem is people ask for the pitch triangle. But I did see a plan the other day with the label in the roof like CA does it. Must have been CA...

[Chrisb222]

15 hours ago, ChiefUserBigRob said:

sounds like I should stay with my pitch marks I created in my library.

 

I use triangle markers, but I have one for every pitch already in all four saved elevation cameras in my template plan. Grab the correct one, slide it into place. Maybe a tad bit easier than pulling from the library?

[BenPalmer]

While pulling from library and templates is not too difficult or time consuming, a huge advantage to having these automated, besides the speed, is to eliminate errors.  Such as when the pitch is changed after the markers have been placed...if one of the markers doesn't get replaced to the new pitch then field problems exist...automation would eliminate this potential error.

[robdyck]

47 minutes ago, BenPalmer said:

.automation would eliminate this potential error.

Multi-pitch roofs would no doubt pose a problem. I envision Chief producing a tool that automatically produces these and then having to delete surfaces in order to find a specific roof planes label that is showing up when it shouldn't be. I would fully expect that cleaning up automated pitch markers would take 50 times longer than using a library cad block.

I would discourage Chief from working on this unless it can be proven to be instant and perfect. I think it goes without saying that programmed automation is fantastic and works really well for simple to mildly complex buildings. Beyond that, it's usually best if the designer isn't afraid to grab the steering wheel.

I'll stick to using the roof labels for preliminary elevation views / reference and my pitch markers for final drawings.

[BenPalmer]

7 minutes ago, robdyck said:

Multi-pitch roofs would no doubt pose a problem. I envision Chief producing a tool that automatically produces these and then having to delete surfaces in order to find a specific roof planes label that is showing up when it shouldn't be. I would fully expect that cleaning up automated pitch markers would take 50 times longer than using a library cad block.

I would discourage Chief from working on this unless it can be proven to be instant and perfect. I think it goes without saying that programmed automation is fantastic and works really well for simple to mildly complex buildings. Beyond that, it's usually best if the designer isn't afraid to grab the steering wheel.

I'll stick to using the roof labels for preliminary elevation views / reference and my pitch markers for final drawings.

Good point.  However, the labels can be off by default and just turn on the ones you want and adjust placement....seems pretty simple, no?  Agreed, there may be times that a more complex roof will either need adjustments or go back to the static block.  But again, the big advantage is if/when we modify the design and change the pitches later (after final drawings) and they automatically update and we don't have to worry about forgetting to change the static block that is now incorrect.   I think the auto update vs the static nature of the blocks is my big motivator for a feature like this vs the time saved in the initial annotation.  Anything I can do to eliminate errors is a big feature in my book.

 

However, like all features...if someone doesn't like it, they don't have to use it, but they shouldn't keep a feature from being developed because someone doesn't want it or like the way it is implemented.  But yes, certainly needs to be done right vs half baked. 

[Gawdzira]

I have always been frustrated with more complex roofs and getting the overlapping roof planes to read correctly. On this plan I did an orthagonal camera view and overlayed that with the roof plan with custom text for roof pitch indicators. This is probably me new method to get it to read well without a lot of cad work on the roof plan view.  

[robdyck]

17 hours ago, BenPalmer said:

However, like all features...if someone doesn't like it, they don't have to use it, but they shouldn't keep a feature from being developed because someone doesn't want it or like the way it is implemented.

Very true! I concede that point! Just to reiterate that I've allowed the developers some freedom

 

17 hours ago, robdyck said:

unless it can be proven to be instant and perfect.

 

[GeneDavis]

If we want program-generated pitch labels, someone ought to think it through carefully and describe how it might be used in producing con-doc layout views, and then write it up as a suggestion.

 

Is it a triangle or an ell?  There are votes for each way.

 

How high up from the roof plane?  Is it text-filled or not?  Certainly not wanting to see it on every single plane of a complex roof arrangement, how do we deselect the planes for which we want to turn off the feature?  And remember, you are in elevation view when you make that judgement, and you cannot select a plane whose baseline is normal to the viewing plane.  You are gonna need to make that selection in a 3D view or a plan view, so you will want to split the screen.

 

Or do we want to activate this new anno tool in 2D section or elevation and have Chief auto annotate any angled line in the view, so we can simply click those few places we want a pitch label.  Does it need to work in a live view and a plot lines view?

 

I know this thread is not about whether to use pitch labels in elevations or sections, or when and how much to use them, but I offer here, just for discussion, an example from Chief of a house with a complex multi pitch roof with very spare use of pitch marks in the elevations.  Take a look.  I have only shown images of the sheets with the exterior elevations, but if you look close at this, a house with about 20 roof planes, only 4 are labeled.

 

But in the full file, which you can go and open and examine, there is a roof plan in which every plane is auto labeled and section views of everything with pitch triangle labels in those structural section views, all to guide the truss builder.  There are different pitches.

 

As I asked upthread, who is it that needs this information?  Has a client ever asked you to change a pitch to a specific number other than maybe a 12?  If a client needs to see the numbers, do they want it on every single plane in those elevation views?

 

I don't bother with them anymore in elevation views, but do put them in the section views that are needed for roof cutters and truss designers.  And I am certainly in favor of a tool which can automate that.  It's a nice challenge for the Chief coders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gawdzira]

Personally, I use an L shaped line with text. If there is not space above the roof plane to place the indicator, a triangle shape can appear to be an architectural element and create confusion. I minimize my use (as shown) but some local jurisdictions require them on elevations. Big props for visual fog to distinguish between the existing and the addition.