More Structure dbx Challenges

[johnny]

  If you want Chief to make all these adjustments automatically then you have to have "REBUILD ON".

 

 

 

I realize some can make the Dbx system work, but I would much prefer if CA allowed us to specifically "set" connections and in some cases turn off all automation.

[lbuttery]

this type of issue is why I starting asking for wall/room/floor/roof locks

 

nothing worse that have "everything" set in an "area"

 

and then finding out later "something" slipped - probably due to user error

and now its a mess and needs to be cleaned up

 

can be very embarrassing if it happens in front of a client or just before a deadline

or worse if makes it into the condocs

 

Lew

[glennw]

Larry,

I have come in late to this thread and I am trying to catch up.

I think the original problems were caused by the foundation room settings, as the floors on level 1 are supplied by the foundation rooms - thus, the floor heights were actually being set by the foundation rooms and not the level 1 rooms which is where you were trying to change them.

Quite often, with mono slabs, you don't have to have the foundation level supplying the floor for the room above.

You can just have the level 1 room supply it's own mono slab.

The trick is that you can't do that if you have foundation rooms on level zero.

You can delete the  foundation rooms on level zero and then have the level 1 room supply its own mono slab.

 

 

In the pics below, why do you have a lot of ceiling framing (Ceiling Joists) that is higher than the roof framing (Rafters and roofing)?

Why do you have polyline ceilings in the hallway and the laundry?

 

 

I think some of your problems are caused because you are trying to do some things manually instead of letting Chief do them automatically (and vice versa).

[bernie]

we need a way for chief to display what us users have told it as the model we have set up,

AND

we need chief to give us better graphical interactive feedback so we can quickly see what we need to change so our structural model vertical heights is what we want the model to be.

 

the way we get better graphical feedback is for the model to reference back to items used in the real world.

e.g.

 

the user dbx(s) for setting all of this up could be overhauled and chiefs internal workings, calcs and 'thinking' slightly tweaked so it 'thinks' and displays a structural model graphic

referenced back to the top plate heightand floor level which is what happens on a building site (instead of top plate + rafter height = baseline.)

 

perhaps from a top plate height that we enter, on a room group by room group basis (so we can do split level models easy )

then everything is calculated and displayed much the same as the select same / load same tool now displays all those values in a table that is soooo much better than x6, x5 ,x4 functionality of the same tool. (and all that happened was the user interface got tweaked to provide more feedback!)

 

buildings are built from the floor up. not top down.

chief thinks from the top down.

 

it would be preferable (and I put this forward as a suggestion for you guys to work on coming to a consensus on before the UGM) to be something along the lines of such:

 

https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/2989-x7-and-or-x8-wishlist/

https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/3007-what-would-be-1-thing-you-would-love-to-see-ca-fix-or-add/page-4

[Richard_Morrison]

It seems to me that all of this confusion could be avoided if floor elevations could be made KING. In other words, changing floor elevations would change ceiling heights, but changing ceiling heights could not change floors. You could lower ceilings (which would not change the floor above; it would just create an interstitial space), but you could never raise ceilings beyond the floor above. Foundations could be lowered, but raising them could not affect floor heights. (It used to be this way, where the stem wall could not be reduced beyond the slab plus ceiling height.) Also, lower floors should not be able to affect higher floors. Raise a floor with a floor above, and the ceiling gets lower; if you want a higher ceiling you'd need to explicitly raise the floor elevation above and the DBX would merely INFORM you what the new ceiling height is.

 

This would work for me.

[Joe_Carrick]

Richard,

 

IMO it's more complicated than that.  it sort of works like that now but not totally.

 

I agree with others who say that it should work form the bottom up since that's how things are actually built.  The problem currently is that you might have a multi-story building and want different floor heights in different areas of the floors.  This represents some unique problems:

 

For example: 

 

1st Floor

  area 1 - Floor Elevation   0.00  - Ceiling 108.00

  area 2 - Floor Elevation 24.00  - Ceiling 120.00

 

2nd Floor

  area 3 (doesn't match area 1 or 2) - Floor Elevation 136.00 - Ceiling 96.00

  area 4 (doesn't match area 1 or 2) - Floor Elevation 154.00 - Ceiling 96.00

 

There are conflicts that may be present depending on Structure, etc.  Without a 3D View to see what's happening it's very difficult to tell where those conflict are.  In some cases it might be necessary for the Structure to be changed or additional "Room Dividers" to be created in order to make everything work the way you want it. 

 

Generally I find that working in 3D Floor Overviews without any Foundation or Roof allows me to get the results I want.  But I have to follow the "Top Down" approach to get it right.  Working in just a Plan and Section doesn't provide enough feedback.  

[HumbleChief]

There's some really good things about the current Structure dbx (actually can't think of any but that's a good way to start a discussion) and some bad things. Those good and bad things are only relevant if you can wrap your mind around the paradigm they've chosen.

 

Somehow the 'structure' behaves best if working from the top down. That is NOT an easy concept to grasp for those who have built houses and not an easy concept to grasp for certain minds that work in a very logical fashion. Right now one must grasp the hidden intent within the structure dbx and there are some who have done this brilliantly, others not so much.

 

I, personally, expect simple things to occur. I change a floor height, the floor height should change. And it will unless there are 4 or 5 other parameters 'in the way' of that simple task. Those 4 or 5 parameters are hidden from the every day user and until all those things are grasped the model does not behave in a simple manner. In the example I posted I changed the heights in one room and all the heights in every other room changed. That's not a problem if you truly understand what Chief is doing under the hood but I think it's too hard to really understand those mechanics.

 

I work with Chief all day every day and usually don't have a problem setting up my structures and have dome some pretty complex models but when stuck I can't apply my version of logic to find my way out. I'll emphasize 'my version' because I think these things are personal. Not everyone has a problem, and I don't have a problem on every plan because I've learned what needs to done but sometimes it is genuinely crazy making, again, to me.

 

To modify the structure dbx might be a huge task, might be a few simple tweaks and I would not want the program to try and fit itself to a single user's misunderstanding of how the program is designed to work but there's something not quite right if the task becomes so difficult that users cannot find their way out of difficulties.

[HumbleChief]

Richard,

 

IMO it's more complicated than that.  it sort of works like that now but not totally.

 

I agree with others who say that it should work form the bottom up since that's how things are actually built.  The problem currently is that you might have a multi-story building and want different floor heights in different areas of the floors.  This represents some unique problems:

 

For example: 

 

1st Floor

  area 1 - Floor Elevation   0.00  - Ceiling 108.00

  area 2 - Floor Elevation 24.00  - Ceiling 120.00

 

2nd Floor

  area 3 (doesn't match area 1 or 2) - Floor Elevation 136.00 - Ceiling 96.00

  area 4 (doesn't match area 1 or 2) - Floor Elevation 154.00 - Ceiling 96.00

 

There are conflicts that may be present depending on Structure, etc.  Without a 3D View to see what's happening it's very difficult to tell where those conflict are.  In some cases it might be necessary for the Structure to be changed or additional "Room Dividers" to be created in order to make everything work the way you want it. 

 

Generally I find that working in 3D Floor Overviews without any Foundation or Roof allows me to get the results I want.  But I have to follow the "Top Down" approach to get it right.  Working in just a Plan and Section doesn't provide enough feedback.  

Agreed, There's no simple answer and the structure dbx has been around for many, many years and many, many versions of Chief. I know that if Chief's programmers take on the challenge they will be wildly successful judging by all the recent changes but it is quite a challenge. Maybe the UGM meeting in Idaho will shed some light? Expectations are low but hope abounds.

[DRAWZILLA]

I agree there are just to many places to adjust floor heights and that can get confusing.

[Ridge_Runner]

It seems to me that all of this confusion could be avoided if floor elevations could be made KING. In other words, changing floor elevations would change ceiling heights, but changing ceiling heights could not change floors. You could lower ceilings (which would not change the floor above; it would just create an interstitial space), but you could never raise ceilings beyond the floor above. Foundations could be lowered, but raising them could not affect floor heights. (It used to be this way, where the stem wall could not be reduced beyond the slab plus ceiling height.) Also, lower floors should not be able to affect higher floors. Raise a floor with a floor above, and the ceiling gets lower; if you want a higher ceiling you'd need to explicitly raise the floor elevation above and the DBX would merely INFORM you what the new ceiling height is.

 

This would work for me.

 

I have been watching this thread with interest since it started. I wanted to gain more info before I opened my mouth and inserted my foot. I am not what some would consider a "power user" but I have used CA since version '97 and have done some complicated structures with it. There is much good discussion here, but NO answer. I understand this is a complicated problem/issue that some have figured out and many, apparently, have not. I am one that has not. I quoted Richard because his comments seem to resonate with the way I think and approach a design/structure. I understand Glenn's comments. However, I seldom have a client who wants me to raise the roof after I have come up with a design concept. I almost always have clients that want me to raise the ceiling height, or lower it, while leaving the floor system alone. With the ceiling/roof in control this almost always leads me to problems with the floor structure. I also agree that CA should refer to "top plate height" vs. the ambiguous baseline; that is what the framers understand. I wouldn't go to a jobsite and tell the framer I need the baseline adjusted - they would laugh me off the site. I don't want to calculate a new baseline every time I have to change roof pitch or go with a different size rafter because the birdsmouth cut is now different. In essence, floors should be King and everything else follow them - most other things I know how to adjust. I appreciate all of the many improvements CA has made to this software/design tool- they are to be commended and I am a fan. But this is at the very basic level of how a design program works. I don't think from the top down; I think like I build - from the bottom up.

 

Mike

[HumbleChief]

Here's another example of how my brain fights the way Chief works. Simple answer of course is to learn how Chief works but the illustration might be helpful if we choose to help re-design this function.

 

[Kbird1]

Somehow the 'structure' behaves best if working from the top down. That is NOT an easy concept to grasp for those who have built houses and not an easy concept to grasp for certain minds that work in a very logical fashion. Right now one must grasp the hidden intent within the structure dbx and there are some who have done this brilliantly, others not so much.

 

I, personally, expect simple things to occur. I change a floor height, the floor height should change. And it will unless there are 4 or 5 other parameters 'in the way' of that simple task. Those 4 or 5 parameters are hidden from the every day user and until all those things are grasped the model does not behave in a simple manner. In the example I posted I changed the heights in one room and all the heights in every other room changed. That's not a problem if you truly understand what Chief is doing under the hood but I think it's too hard to really understand those mechanics.

 

I work with Chief all day every day and usually don't have a problem setting up my structures and have dome some pretty complex models but when stuck I can't apply my version of logic to find my way out. I'll emphasize 'my version' because I think these things are personal. Not everyone has a problem, and I don't have a problem on every plan because I've learned what needs to done but sometimes it is genuinely crazy making, again, to me.

 

 

Part of the problem with this is that nothing is Documented, even with a 1300 page Ref. Manual, many topics are just glossed over, so you can't Learn about it ,or figure out the "hidden" links inside the Structure and many other DBX's in CA , which makes it even harder for New Users and I see why Johnny has made some of his comments as stuff like this can make you crazy , nevermind the fact you are losing money while trying to figure it out.  

 

@ Larry ...I wonder if this might have been a good case for the Edit>Reset to Defaults DBX , something I always forget about....

[johnny]

Finish Ceiling and Rough Ceiling hgts should not be connected - that makes little sense really.  You should be able to set both independent of each-other.  I swear I thought i've seen a Scott video on this issue, and making ceiling joists inside the wall framing.

[johnny]

If you can't change the finish ceiling height or the floor level above without changing everything else - what is the point of even allowing this input? 

[dshall]

Finish Ceiling and Rough Ceiling hgts should not be connected - that makes little sense really.  You should be able to set both independent of each-other.  I swear I thought i've seen a Scott video on this issue, and making ceiling joists inside the wall framing.

Wrong,  they should be  connected.   Finished ceiling is dependent on rough ceiling.  You may be referring to a dropped soffit ceiling which is independent of the rough ceiling.  

 

Based upon what you said,  you do not understand how CA is working..... 

 

I do  not mean to be a smart a**,  so please forgive me,    maybe I have messed around with this stuff so much that it is actually making sense to my pea  sized brain.  

 

So,  I would recommend that anybody who is a bit confused.....  and I include myself in these numbers.....  may want to join in or at least listen in on the STRUCTURAL WORKSHOP.......   

 

https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/6090-structural-workshop-pre-ugm-thursday-aug-6th-300-pm-pst/

[HumbleChief]

Scott,

 

I included that last vid as maybe some fodder for some input/output during that meeting. If it's relevant fine, if not, fine too.

[HumbleChief]

Based upon what you said,  you do not understand how CA is working..... 

That's the challenge in a nut shell - understanding how Chief is working. At some point I think it sinks in, where/when that point is, is another matter.

[dshall]

Scott,

 

I included that last vid as maybe some fodder for some input/output during that meeting. If it's relevant fine, if not, fine too.

Larry, I did not watch the entire video,  I watched it until 1:07.   This is such a great vid that you did because it gives me the opportunity to point out the logic of CA.  

 

You dropped the ceiling over the porch,  which is the bottom of the deck above.  If you drop the ceiling of the porch,  what do you expect the deck above to do?  It will drop down because it's height is defined by the ceiling below. 

 

Why would you drop the ceiling of the porch?  The ceiling of the porch is the underside of the deck.  If you want the top of  deck to stay in place,  well, create a new ceiling/soffit ceiling under the deck at the porch.  I think you were trying to control the wall height by controlling the ceiling height....  wrong wrong wrong.  

 

Anyway,  see you at the workshop.  After the workshop,  some of this stuff might start to make sense to you.

[johnny]

Wrong,  they should be  connected.   Finished ceiling is dependent on rough ceiling.  You may be referring to a dropped soffit ceiling which is independent of the rough ceiling.  

 

Based upon what you said,  you do not understand how CA is working..... 

 

I do  not mean to be a smart a**,  so please forgive me,    maybe I have messed around with this stuff so much that it is actually making sense to my pea  sized brain.  

 

So,  I would recommend that anybody who is a bit confused.....  and I include myself in these numbers.....  may want to join in or at least listen in on the STRUCTURAL WORKSHOP.......   

 

https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/6090-structural-workshop-pre-ugm-thursday-aug-6th-300-pm-pst/

 

I guess there is some terminology differences - as in if I produce a 2d plan with varying degrees of heights I would call-out a "plate height" and a "finish ceiling height" on the floor plan and section, but on the roof plan I would indicate ceiling joists framed down (soffit label can be used), but I actually wouldn't call it out as a soffit as I use for varying heights of finish ceilings adjacent to each other.

 

I would take the "rough" ceiling as being the plate height - but perhaps I am wrong.  So what is "rough ceiling" in CA?

[HumbleChief]

Larry, I did not watch the entire video,  I watched it until 1:07.   This is such a great vid that you did because it gives me the opportunity to point out the logic of CA.  

 

You dropped the ceiling over the porch,  which is the bottom of the deck above.  If you drop the ceiling of the porch,  what do you expect the deck above to do?  It will drop down because it's height is defined by the ceiling below. 

 

Why would you drop the ceiling of the porch?  The ceiling of the porch is the underside of the deck.  If you want the top of  deck to stay in place,  well, create a new ceiling/soffit ceiling under the deck at the porch.  I think you were trying to control the wall height by controlling the ceiling height....  wrong wrong wrong.  

 

Anyway,  see you at the workshop.  After the workshop,  some of this stuff might start to make sense to you.

Not trying to justify my logic just more trying to point out what I would like to see in the structure dbx.

 

I would like to see the ceiling and walls drop when the ceiling height is changed, AND have the floor of the room above remain where it is. I know that's not the way Chief works - I just wish it was.

 

If you watched the video to the end, how else would you lower the wall height other than manually as I showed? There's no ceiling/soffit over that room just an open area. It's done now by manually changing the wall heights in 3D but again, just perhaps an illustration of a simpler way of approaching Chief. I also understand how complex the entire process is but I'm going to try and think of simpler ways Chief might work in the future.

[Kbird1]

Your last video isn't really a case of where to use the Room Ceiling height to control walls Larry as you only want 2 walls at 72" not all 5-6 that form that Room , using the Half Wall tool or Fence Tool is more appropriate since you aren't really trying to lower the ceiling.

 

M.

[HumbleChief]

Your last video isn't really a case of where to use the Room Ceiling height to control walls Larry as you only want 2 walls at 72" not all 5-6 that form that Room , using the Half Wall tool or Fence Tool is more appropriate since you aren't really trying to lower the ceiling.

 

M.

Probably correct, thanks Mick.

[Joe_Carrick]

Another little trick:

 

If you want a lowered ceiling without changing anything else.....  Use a Ceiling Plane - even though it's in the Build Roof Menu, it can be used on lower floors.

[DRAWZILLA]

To change the ceiling height keeping the floor above , you have to use the floor definition from above and add a dropped ceiling with framing in the floor DBX ( using your math skills) and build the correct config you need. really simple. For the lowered walls you can use railing walls for that. I also use this method when I have a second floor addition and want to keep the 1st floor ceiling joists and overbuild the 2nd floor, I just wish there was a way to control the existing ceiling joists direction, they have to go the same direction as the floor joists now. I have to repair the sections when that happens.

[dshall]

...... I just wish there was a way to control the existing ceiling joists direction, they have to go the same direction as the floor joists now. .....

 

That my friend is what we are looking for at the workshop.  Let's keep a list of this stuff when we go to the UGM.  We will corner Doug Park in a dark alley,  and explain to him our needs,  we might even need to get Scott Harris.