Roof Label Units

[JKEdmo]

Good morning,

 

Is there a way to modify the default roof label units to round to nearest 1/2"?

 

Thanks,

 

Jim

 

 

[Alaskan_Son]

Yes, but why would you want that if it’s not accurate?  Why not change the pitch and make your model correct?  

[scottkendall]

2 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

Yes, but why would you want that if it’s not accurate?  Why not change the pitch and make your model correct?  

 

One reason that I do not condone would be:

 

High limitation if you use the right pitch you will exceed it so you draw it at one height/pitch and build it at another since the plan checker will check the high but no building inspector is going to and even if they do if you are only a few inches over they will chalk it up to field construction.  Some contractors love to live in the grey area and walk the line of what is code compliant and what is not.  

 

Also I am not sure any framer is going to follow that 3 5/16 : 12 pitch... Maybe 3 1/4 : 12... I am not sure I would want my tolerance set to 1/2 but 1/8" - 1/4" is what I have had contractors ask me for they get really prissy when you give them fractions like 5/16 or 3/32 lol. 

 

 

 

[Alaskan_Son]

5 hours ago, scottkendall said:

 

One reason that I do not condone would be:

 

High limitation if you use the right pitch you will exceed it so you draw it at one height/pitch and build it at another since the plan checker will check the high but no building inspector is going to and even if they do if you are only a few inches over they will chalk it up to field construction.  Some contractors love to live in the grey area and walk the line of what is code compliant and what is not.  

 

Also I am not sure any framer is going to follow that 3 5/16 : 12 pitch... Maybe 3 1/4 : 12... I am not sure I would want my tolerance set to 1/2 but 1/8" - 1/4" is what I have had contractors ask me for they get really prissy when you give them fractions like 5/16 or 3/32 lol. 

 

 

 

 

You're talking about reasons to draw at a different pitch then it will be built.  I was asking why someone would want to round to a different pitch instead of drawing to the desired pitch.  What it gets built at wasn't part of the equation.  In other words, why would someone need to draw a roof at 3 5/16:12 and show at 3 1/2:12?  Why not just change the roof to 3 1/2:12? 

[SHCanada2]

My guess is one reason is 3.5 to 12 might put the building over height on the elevations which the city checks for bylaw compliance. 

 

Or it needs to be that pitch to meet an existing roof or wall and no one wants to see 16 of on inch . In other words it is understood by everyone that the roofs must meet and this pitch is provided so one can understand what it looks like relative to other roof pitches

 

I think this type of thing is done in a few places. Decks come to mind. If the stud is used as the dimension of a building then if I add a 10ft deck. The overall stud dimension of the building and deck is an extra 3/8 for the sheathing in between the deck and building. But the framer doesn't take off 3/8 and the plans do not show an extra 3/8

[JKEdmo]

10 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

Yes, but why would you want that if it’s not accurate?

It's an as-built of an existing house so my model will not be 100% accurate.  Just trying for a reasonable representation of existing conditions including roof units.

 

Was asking if there is a way to "clean up" the dimension output so it's more sane.  I know I can manually override the dimension with text.  I know I can also adjust the roof steepness for the output I want.

 

I was just curious if there was another way through dimensional units setting.

 

Thanks,

 

Jim

 

[JKEdmo]

22 minutes ago, SHCanada2 said:

Or it needs to be that pitch to meet an existing roof or wall and no one wants to see 16 of on inch

 

Bingo!  That's it Jason.  I guess I should have been clearer that it is not new construction, but existing.

 

Was just wondering if roof slope dimension had unit rounding control similar to regular dimensions.  So far have not found anything.

 

Jim

 

[scottkendall]

On 3/17/2025 at 5:57 AM, Alaskan_Son said:

 

You're talking about reasons to draw at a different pitch then it will be built.  I was asking why someone would want to round to a different pitch instead of drawing to the desired pitch.  What it gets built at wasn't part of the equation.  In other words, why would someone need to draw a roof at 3 5/16:12 and show at 3 1/2:12?  Why not just change the roof to 3 1/2:12? 

Because at 3 1/2:12 would make the drawing exceed the height limitation just like I previously said. So you draw it at 3 5/16 so on the drawing it does not exceed the height limitation but you make it read 3 1/2 : 12 so that it is built the way you want. If you make it the right pitch it will exceed the height limitation.   I am not the only one that thought this since @SHCanada2 said practically the same thing I did only real difference is he addressed that it also could be an existing condition. 

[Alaskan_Son]

31 minutes ago, scottkendall said:

Because at 3 1/2:12 would make the drawing exceed the height limitation just like I previously said. So you draw it at 3 5/16 so on the drawing it does not exceed the height limitation but you make it read 3 1/2 : 12 so that it is built the way you want.  I am not the only one that thought this since @SHCanada2 said practically the same thing I did only real difference is he addressed that it also could be an existing condition. 

 

Ya, I understood your point after Jason reinforced it a bit more.  I guess I kinda discounted the height limitation issue though knowing that could just be handled with some tweaks to the elevation dimensions because I only see 2 scenarios:

1. You know the building will be too tall and you just want to get it by plan reviewers.  In this case, dimensions are very easy to manually modify.
2. You know the building may be too tall but want to do what you can in the field to keep it shorter, in which case some emphasized notes/dimensions would be appropriate in addition to some more correct pitch information.  

[scottkendall]

13 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

Ya, I understood your point after Jason reinforced it a bit more.  I guess I kinda discounted the height limitation issue though knowing that could just be handled with some tweaks to the elevation dimensions because I only see 2 scenarios:

1. You know the building will be too tall and you just want to get it by plan reviewers.  In this case, dimensions are very easy to manually modify.
2. You know the building may be too tall but want to do what you can in the field to keep it shorter, in which case some emphasized notes/dimensions would be appropriate in addition to some more correct pitch information.  

1. Exactly you just want to get past the plan checker. 

2. IF you want it to be shorter generally you would just draw it right with the right information but also keep in mind that framers hate small fractions and try and keep them close to 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 anything else and they are cursing you.... 

 

In the case here since @JKEdmo has an as-built condition I would not put a pitch at all I would say to match the existing. 

[SHCanada2]

 

This is what ~ is for

 

 

[Alaskan_Son]

On 3/17/2025 at 7:29 AM, JKEdmo said:

 

Bingo!  That's it Jason.  I guess I should have been clearer that it is not new construction, but existing.

 

 

If your existing construction has some oddball pitch but you still need to show pitch (for roofing contractor perhaps), then I would just manually modify the roof label for a situation like this.  Takes about 5 seconds.

[scottkendall]

19 minutes ago, SHCanada2 said:

 

This is what ~ is for

 

 

What is the tilde mark for? 

[JKEdmo]

57 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

If your existing construction has some oddball pitch but you still need to show pitch (for roofing contractor perhaps), then I would just manually modify the roof label for a situation like this.  Takes about 5 seconds.

Yes. I know this and do this already.  But, back to my original question -- can one set (automatic) roof label units to round up or down to nearest 1/4" or 1/2"?  Like regular dimensions?  From what I can tell the answer is no.  Not a deal breaker for me, I was just curious.  Wasn't a framing / best practices / permitting question.  Simply a drafting output question.

 

Thanks,

 

Jim

 

[Alaskan_Son]

13 minutes ago, JKEdmo said:

But, back to my original question -- can one set (automatic) roof label units to round up or down to nearest 1/4" or 1/2"?  Like regular dimensions?

 

Interesting.  I just re-read your original post.  I don't recall reading the words "default roof label".  No, the default roof label cannot currently be changed because we don't current have a roof label default.  We can however use a custom macro to get roof labels to automatically round.  You would have to manually put that macro into the label though.

[Alaskan_Son]

1 hour ago, scottkendall said:

What is the tilde mark for? 

The tilde is a mathematical symbol for approximation.  I think Jason was humorously suggesting a way to fudge the numbers without exactly being dishonest. 

[JKEdmo]

11 minutes ago, Alaskan_Son said:

No, the default roof label cannot currently be changed because we don't current have a roof label default.

Thanks Michael for your input.  (I'll try to be more precise with my wording).

 

Good and lively discussion above regarding precision in modeling.  As an architect (i.e. non-builder) I have no problem fudging things if necessary to move the drawings along.  My personal standard is the model doesn't have to be perfect but good enough, and then on to the next project.

 

Jim

 

[scottkendall]

34 minutes ago, JKEdmo said:

Thanks Michael for your input.  (I'll try to be more precise with my wording).

 

Good and lively discussion above regarding precision in modeling.  As an architect (i.e. non-builder) I have no problem fudging things if necessary to move the drawings along.  My personal standard is the model doesn't have to be perfect but good enough, and then on to the next project.

 

Jim

 

IMO as an Architect we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the builders and not fudge things more often then apsolutly necessary.... I am currently not employed because the Design build company that I was working for was always trying to do things that I found ethically wrong but also in direct violation of the zoning ordinances and the building code.  Fudging things in my experience is because you want to be dishonest and I hate dishonesty. 

[JKEdmo]

6 minutes ago, scottkendall said:

Fudging things in my experience is because you want to be dishonest and I hate dishonesty.

Strong words.  Take it down a notch please.

 

 

 

[CharlesVolz]

3 hours ago, scottkendall said:

 

In the case here since @JKEdmo has an as-built condition I would not put a pitch at all I would say to match the existing. 

Exactly. 

[scottkendall]

32 minutes ago, JKEdmo said:

Strong words.  Take it down a notch please.

Sorry that the word dishonest or hate offends you, I thought that those word were already down a lot of notches. 

[SHCanada2]

2 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

The tilde is a mathematical symbol for approximation.  I think Jason was humorously suggesting a way to fudge the numbers without exactly being dishonest.

I would say it is telling the audience it is an approximation, similar to +-.  I'm not sure I would characterize it as being dishonest if you did not, as in general the degree of precision is not usually considered dishonest (see my deck example above). Its' like there is this world of unwritten precision that has been around long enough that every one expects it, but it also varies. Heights are to the 1/8" but not always, site plans are to the 1/2" but not always, etc. But what it is saying is you know it is not exact and communicating that to the reader.  In cases where there is an expectation of exactness (such as most roof pitches), I think it helps convey it is not.

 

For me, in cases like this I would either omit the roof pitch, and instead show in a section the distance above the floor it hits a wall, or if it is hitting another roof, I would probably put ~3.5:12. But would I put in 3.6:12 if it was 3.6? probably. 3.693245678 as 3.7, probably. At some point if it is close enough, I would not put in the ~. And to be honest, what I considered close enough probably varies by the day I am doing it and the intended audience. IF I knew it was being stick framed and there is no such thing as a framer using a roofing square with 3.6 on it, then I think it would be fair to put a 3.5890 pitch as 3.6, simply because he will not do anything with that information. If it was being trussed, I can almost guarantee you the truss company would call and verify a 3.5890 pitch. They would probably just ask you what is the height of the truss you want.

[JKEdmo]

1 minute ago, SHCanada2 said:

I would say it is telling the audience it is an approximation, similar to +-.

 

Thanks Jason.  Yes, that's my approach too and was my intent.

 

As Chief was spitting out a "silly" roof slope of a 16th of an inch, I just wanted to adjust the automatic output to be reasonable and was looking for alternative to manual text override.

 

To sum up for the audience, I was simply documenting an existing roof condition.  I wanted to indicate the existing, approximate and to my best knowledge roof slope.  The modeled roof plane had a weird fractional slope because it was driven by the set conditions:  a shed dormer on a standard plate height rising up to meet an existing ridge whose height was set by an opposite roof plane with a "normal" roof slope of 12:12.  And since it's as-built documentation, there was no proposed new construction (roofs).  So, "match existing" note is not relevant.

 

Well, I suppose this topic has been exhausted!

 

Yours wearily,

 

Jim