Is there anyway to do this in Softplan- preferably automatically?
A rafter- 2x8 or 10 with the overhang tails ripped down to 5-1/2" or 3-1/2"?
The case is an open framed porch butting up to a truss roof with standard truss tails.
Posted 09 June 2017 - 08:37 AM
It is something that should be possible. It is unfortunate that other programs have had features like this for several years, and SP has yet to upgrade the framing programming to better show the realities of how parts go together.
Mark Petri
Petri Building and Design
Posted 10 June 2017 - 12:58 PM
As long as the pitch doesn't change, a profile should work perfectly. you just need to set it up beforehand. Good catch Randy.
Posted 12 June 2017 - 06:39 AM
But why do a work-around for something that is so common. I've actual quit trying to get roof framing to look the way it ought to be, because it just doesn't work. If I need to show some complicated roof framing, I draw it in SketchUp. Try doing this in SoftPlan without a ton of work-arounds....
Mark Petri
Petri Building and Design
Posted 12 June 2017 - 12:27 PM
So, Steve and Carla, you don't show lookout framing over a drop gable truss or gable wall with what seems to be a 24" overhang. The stepped gables would also require more framing than you are showing (at least at the snow loads in our area). Your blocking is vertical instead of perpendicular to the top of the rafter/truss chord. If you show your framing with soffits, subfascia, and fascia, what does your rafter tail look like? Where does your subfascia sit compared to your fascia? Can you show a gutter on a raked fascia? These are details that ought to be easy to show and detail without work-arounds in leading CAD programs. In SP it looks good from a distance, but the detail isn't there. Many other programs are the same. I've done plenty of roof framing in SP that can look impressive from a distance, but the cuts and joinery is very inaccurate when you zoom in. I find that using SketchUp for the tighter details and SoftPlan for the architectural set works well. Neither program is the best of everything. However, I hope to see even more leaps and bounds in improvement from SP as they are more than capable of working out some of the kinks in the program. To me, I guess I expect more, but I also like to produce more detail than is reasonably possible with just one program in many projects.
I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, I am just being an advocate for what I prefer and what I've hoped for in a program. I've used a few, and have stuck with the combo between SP and SU for several years. I just want, and (in many ways expect) more.
-Mark
Mark Petri
Petri Building and Design
Posted 12 June 2017 - 01:13 PM
Mark,
The example first shown was a quick rendering for a builder that did not need the lookout framing shown, only rafter location.
Here is another framing rendering showing the lookouts over drop gables along with framing over exposed timber framing etc.
I am more than aware of the snow and wind loadings you speak of having hand framed roofs in locations such as Jackson Hole,
Wyoming, Vail, Colorado, and currently Big Sky, Montana were some of our roofs are loaded at 125# per foot with 100 mph wind
loading. The point was that with little effort Softplan is capable of anything the client is willing to pay for along with how much hand
holding the builder needs to accomplish the task. 50 years ago we did not need the same hand holding and the napkin sketch was
enough for a building permit and the attention to detail a matter of pride.
Posted 12 June 2017 - 02:09 PM
I agree enough drawings to satisfy the building department and most builders can be accomplished with SP. I also feel SP could function a lot better in aspects of details, framing, etc. I work with a variety of clients and builders. Some need a lot more hand holding than others. Some think just because they did it one way for 25 years it should be fine (that often does not hold true - many have done things wrong for a long time). Most of the time getting a permit is the easy part. Getting the contractor to build things the way it should be done can be a challenge. The building departments also now pass almost all liability off to the builders, designers, architects, and engineers. We are less than thrilled when a contractor builds something without reading plans or a full grasp of what is correct. We try to cater to the needs of the variety of folks we work with giving a level of detail we are comfortable they will be able to work with to get the best results. Just the same, I like things to look as much they way they are built as possible when I model a project. I also prefer to use the best of each program to accomplish the level of detail I feel is good for each project. Some require more than others. The ability to integrate and use multiple programs helps. I'd love if I could do more in SP alone without the typical work-arounds.
Thanks for the dialog and your examples. The houses you draw look very nice!
Mark Petri
Petri Building and Design
Posted 22 June 2017 - 09:00 PM
Hay Mark, great detail work on the gable ladders & valley sleepers!
Posted 25 June 2017 - 09:12 AM
I am some glad we don't stick frame!
Five out of four people are not very good with fractions
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users