tommy1

Known Current Bugs In X8 Beta?

Recommended Posts

Dermot,

 

I reported a bug with the Stair Top Height to Kirk and sent a Plan that he said he forwarded.  This was an X7 Plan brought forward to X8 and the Stair Height is 1/2" higher than the 2nd Floor (the thickness of the Finish Floor).  It doesn't seem to be a problem with new X8 Plans but we do need X7 Projects to work correctly in X8.

 

That bug has not been fixed.

 

That's because we couldn't find any bugs. 

 

As far as I can tell, X7 and X8 should work exactly the same with regards to how we calculate automatic stair heights.  We always use finish floor heights to determine the height difference for calculating riser heights.  I believe that this is the correct way to do this if you wish to meet code requirements.  You always have the option to specify your own manual heights for any other situations.

 

The thing that might be confusing you is that we have changed the default way we display the "Top Height" in the Stair Specification dialog in X8.  In X8, we now display the top height using the floor or landing as the reference instead of the using the top tread like we did in X7.  If you switch to use the top tread as your reference, you should see the exact same numbers that you would have seen in X7.

 

See picture and plan below for reference.  If you open the plan in both X7 and X8, you should see that the stair is being built the same. 

 

 

 

 

 

post-26-0-26346500-1456333363_thumb.png

x7 stair top height.plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dermot,

 

Please look at the following pics:

post-47-0-55815800-1456335082_thumb.jpgpost-47-0-28369300-1456335099_thumb.jpg

Note that the top of stair height is 109-7/8" and the risers are 7-7/8".

Then note that the 2nd Floor Elevation is 109-3/8".  Both Floors have a 1/2" Floor Finish thickness.  There are 14 risers total.  That should result in 7-13/16" risers, not 7-7/8" risers.

 

If this was being calculated incorrectly in X7 then there needs to be a fix so that X7 Plans will be correct in X7 and in X8 as well.  I checked the stair attributes and find that the top_height is still reporting the elevation of the top tread even when the "Floor/Landing" is selected in the dbx.  IMO that should also be corrected.

 

I have rechecked this and am finding that even in X8 New Plans the values don't match.  Usually, the stairs are actually constructed "Rough Floor to Rough Floor" with the assumption that the thickness of the floor finish will be the same (or very close) at all "Floors/Landings".  The other option would be to make it "Finish Floor to Finish Floor".  BTW, if you increase the Floor Finish to 2" on each floor then the stair height will be 2" more than the actual difference between floors.  It would appear that the finish floor thickness of the lower floor is being ignored in the calculation.

 

Please fix this.

 

ps:  If you would like to go over this with a GTM let me know.

 

After further testing I find that the Floor Finish seems to be ignored only when it's a Mono-Slab Foundation.  The problem is that the calculated Stair Height is going from the Slab to the 2nd Floor Finish instead of the 1st Finish Floor to the 2nd Floor Finish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bug [bugs] of just a screwee way of doing things???

 

Here's what I did:

 

Build a 4-walled box house with a 2x6 Siding-6 default wall type and put a concrete stem wall foundation under it (not relevant).

 

Build a matching 2nd story over floor 1.  Ceiling heights for both levels is 97-1/8" (rough) .... using 11-7/8" I-Joists and 3/4" subfloor both levels [floor to floor height is 109-3/4"].

 

Build a 2x4 Interior-4 divider wall across the middle (more or less) of the house (not relevant).

 

Build a stairs butting up to the divider wall (parallel with) and make it have 14 ea. 11" deep treads (15 risers @ 7-5/16") and its height = 109-3/4" as noted above.

 

Select the stairs and then click on the Auto Stairwell tool to create a stair opening in the floor and an auto railing around it (3 sides with one end open).

 

I decide I want one of the floor 2 railing side walls to be an Interior-4 wall and it will mimic (sit directly over) the divider wall on floor 1.

 

I select one of the floor 2 stairwell side railing walls and open its spec dbx; uncheck railing; go to wall types and change to Interior-4.  This is what it looks like in plan:

 

post-191-0-47809500-1456339283_thumb.jpg

 

X8 shows the Interior-4 wall as having dashed lines for the yellow framing layer.  I think they should be solid but that didn't happen.  If I select the "converted" wall and open its spec dbx, and click on the Wall Types selection on the left side, you can see that it correctly displays the Wall Type as Interior-4 but the graphic right below "incorrectly" shows the Interior-4 wall as having the main layer (framing ... yellow) with dashed lines.  [see Below]:

 

post-191-0-95780400-1456339841_thumb.jpg

 

If I click on the Define button in the dbx and open the Wall Type Definitions layers specs and then click on either the Fir Stud 16" OC or Drywall layers you will see that the line styles are dashed with a Line Weight of 18.  Why CA changed the line style to dashed and the line weight to 18 vs the default value of 35 is beyond me. 

 

post-191-0-69731900-1456340230_thumb.jpg 

 

The Interior Railing wall type does have the framing layer with a line weight of 18 BUT the line style is a "solid line".  Once I changed the wall type to Interior-4, shouldn't CA have switched to that wall type's specs (line styles and line weights)?

 

One other "little" buggy thing I noticed in this exercise was when I did a cross section perpendicular to the direction of the stairs.  You will notice in the image below, where the red circle is, that CA shows the tread as it passes through the floor system "on the left side" as extending beyond/outside of the opening through the floor 2 floor joists/framing.

 

post-191-0-90876100-1456341231_thumb.jpg

 

The stair tread projection could easily be ignored as not a big deal or cleaned up in a LO view.... but .... is there a way that it can be fixed [in a future update] so we don't have to deal with it?  I realize there are other ways to handle the railing wall issue to eliminate having to change line styles and line weights, but I bring it up because not everyone using Chief works the same way or always works in a "logical" fashion and when we run into these "issues", we almost always spend far too much time trying to figure things out.  So, is/are these X8 bugs that need fixin or not?  Or is it just crazy to do what I did to discover what I did ... should I just forget about it?  I dunno?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After further testing I find that the Floor Finish seems to be ignored only when it's a Mono-Slab Foundation.  The problem is that the calculated Stair Height is going from the Slab to the 2nd Floor Finish instead of the 1st Finish Floor to the 2nd Floor Finish.

 

This looks like a bug to me (and yes, X7 does have the same problem).  I will make sure that it is added to our database and we will look into it further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the plan I was experimenting with:

 

StairRailingToInt4.plan

 

The top (upper) stairs in the plan was added later with the Interior-4 wall in place before the stairwell for that stairs was created.  As you can see, there's no issues with the Interior-4 wall type defn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stair tread projection could easily be ignored as not a big deal or cleaned up in a LO view.... but .... is there a way that it can be fixed [in a future update] so we don't have to deal with it?  I realize there are other ways to handle the railing wall issue to eliminate having to change line styles and line weights, but I bring it up because not everyone using Chief works the same way or always works in a "logical" fashion and when we run into these "issues", we almost always spend far too much time trying to figure things out.  So, is/are these X8 bugs that need fixin or not?  Or is it just crazy to do what I did to discover what I did ... should I just forget about it?  I dunno?

 

Chief has never been able to figure out how to notch the tread overhang where it intersects with the platform.  If this is important to you, then you should report it to technical support as a bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks like a bug to me (and yes, X7 does have the same problem).  I will make sure that it is added to our database and we will look into it further.

Thank you Dermot.  This is a very important detail since it results in incorrect dimensions for building the stairs.  Granted it's only when the lower floor is a slab - but that's a lot of homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dermot:

 

No, the stair tread/floor platform thingy isn't a big issue for me.  It was by accident that I even noticed it.

 

What about the other issue [dashed lines, wrong line weight] .... that seems like it could drive a few other users crazy (well, maybe only half crazy) if they ran into it and then spent a bunch of extra time trying to sort out what went south?  I could see where this may be problematic for newer, inexperienced Chief users.

 

By the way, thanks for fixing the post footing issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is a bug, or user error, but WTF is this bizarre linear entity in my camera view, and how do I make it go away?

 

How do you make it go away.  You  post the plan on this web site and in about 17.38 seconds you will have an answer.....  but my bet would be a wayward fascia board.......  It's Michael the Alaskan Son who is on a roll with answers to questions.......  let's time him,  post the plan and let's see how long it takes  him to solve the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dermot:

By the way, thanks for fixing the post footing issue. 

Ditto!!!! 

 

Now I just wish the size (diameter and/or width/depth) could be specified in the same tab of the dbx as the shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3D Mouse.........

 

The controls for the 3D mouse still work backwards from all other Cad software that uses the mouse. Move to the left on the Control...... mouse view should go to the left instead it goes to the right move control to the left house moves to the right........  pull the control out and it should zoom  larger........ Chief zooms smaller...........( Sketchup 2016, Rhinoceros 5, Autocad 2015, Solidworks, FormZ 8.5, Turbocad 2016  all move correctly............ and yes you can in the 3D Connexion ......Home reverse the Navigation but then if you are using other programs that use the correct orientation at the same time all the others are wrong......)

 

If 3D mouse is to be viable....... you guys either need to get on board with other software or allow changes with-in preferences.

 

kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using X8 Beta and downloaded the updates this morning.  My perspective overviews shrunk when printing to PDF.  Attached image has the layout view above the PDF view.  I have the views set to update on demand.  Ideas? other than just sending an image to layout?

Thanks,

Kim

post-3824-0-88294200-1456367806_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3D Mouse.........

 

The controls for the 3D mouse still work backwards from all other Cad software that uses the mouse. Move to the left on the Control...... mouse view should go to the left instead it goes to the right move control to the left house moves to the right........  pull the control out and it should zoom  larger........ Chief zooms smaller...........( Sketchup 2016, Rhinoceros 5, Autocad 2015, Solidworks, FormZ 8.5, Turbocad 2016  all move correctly............ and yes you can in the 3D Connexion ......Home reverse the Navigation but then if you are using other programs that use the correct orientation at the same time all the others are wrong......)

 

If 3D mouse is to be viable....... you guys either need to get on board with other software or allow changes with-in preferences.

 

kevin

 

Kevin,

 

In Preferences --> Render -- Set 3D mouse to "Rotate About Camera Focal Point".. Then in a Chief 3d window Reverse all advanced 3D mouse settings. It then navigates exactly as in Sketchup, and I assume other programs. Profiles switch dynamically as you move between programs as each program has it's own profile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kim, one of the issues with the live camera views changing when printing, corrected for me when I changed the view from Update on Demand to Update Always. Shot in the dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have a connected/closed multi sided polyline of varying angles in CAMERA view the parallel tool only works to the bottom of the shape, and not the sides or top.  It works as expected in floor plan, but not in a CAMERA.  An example of this is drawing some cad that I want to parallel to the roof.  Anyone else seeing this?  If i disconnect the line from the closed polyline, then it will parallel to that line, but not when it is closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have a connected/closed multi sided polyline of varying angles in CAMERA view the parallel tool only works to the bottom of the shape, and not the sides or top.  It works as expected in floor plan, but not in a CAMERA.  An example of this is drawing some cad that I want to parallel to the roof.  Anyone else seeing this?  If i disconnect the line from the closed polyline, then it will parallel to that line, but not when it is closed.

 

I'm getting a similar behavior except that its the bottom of the shape that won't register...

post-46-0-53750800-1456421020_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted a few bugs to the "X8 Public Release" thread but they might be better off here...

 

Sheet Label (1/A-1) disappears from section call outs in layout views (shows up as (1) with no sheet number below it.

 

Extremely erratic text behavior. Text is missing from layouts but is still showing up correctly in plan views. Text wrap is erratic to.

 

https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/8435-x8-public-release/

Posts 13 and 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roof Materials

In X7 and previous versions. To change the roof and ridge cap materials I simply opened material defaults and changed the material there. It would then update all roofs in the plan.(Unless the material was change with the eye dropper.)
Now when updating the material defaults only the ridge cap changes. I know we added the ability to define roof layers but changing the default there does not update the roof without rebuilding the roof. This is fine if its a simple roof but when you have a complicated roof, regenerating it is not an option.
Under the Build Roof/Roof Layers/Surface-Edit. The material should be able to assign as "Default Material". Otherwise what is the point of defining a default roof material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe,

 

Edit all roof planes works but if you regenerate the roof it will revert back to Asphalt Black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you need to go into the "Material Defaults" and change the Roof Material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Member Statistics

    27841
    Total Members
    6254
    Most Online
    ExcelNow2
    Newest Member
    ExcelNow2
    Joined