Hi there,
I have a roof joist that I was designing for a building that has a “quasi-gable” structure… looking at a cross section, it goes from pitched to flat back to pitched again… I set up my pitched member first, then copied to do flat analysis, and imagine my surprise when all my loads changed when I switched from pitched to flat… Can you please default to keep whatever loads are already identified on a member whenever you do a change in pitch?
This pairs with another of my requests that you keep the loading/lengths/other properties when you switch materials (especially to and from generic material beam analysis).
Cheers,
-Andrew
Thank you for reaching out!
You’re correct—the issue occurs because we use two separate load tables when switching between options, which means the data entered in each table is kept separate and not linked. I’ve informed our team about this, and we’ll be looking into potential solutions. Unfortunately, there isn’t a quick fix at the moment.
I believe some of the material-related issues you mentioned have already been addressed. However, if these issues persist, please let us know, and we’ll investigate further to resolve them.
I have a quick question for you: On a scale of 0 to 5, how often do you see yourself using this feature if it were implemented, with 5 being for every project and 0 being very rarely
Thanks again for bringing this to our attention and helping us improve our templates to better suit your workflow.
I think I figured out that the main problem with the lengths/loading resetting with material switching was when switching to and from the “generic” beam analysis module [i.e. the non-specific material]… this specific calculator seems to not be of the same quality as the rest of your calculators… I’m not quite sure why, but it looks like it either wasn’t developed concurrently, or wasn’t included in update cycles when other calculators were updated.
Pitched vs. flat I’d use on a fair number of projects… it’s helpful not to start from scratch when I’ve dialed in a gist of the loading… I do a fair number of buildings that have a flat mechanical well in addition to pitched roof, and at least a few times wherein I want to design a ridge beam after designing a pitched rafter… so perhaps 4/5 - I use this often and am often frustrated by it.
Hello!
Thank you so much for your detailed feedback! I truly appreciate the time you took to outline your concerns. I’ve shared your insights with the team, and we’re reviewing them carefully.
We also recognize the importance of seamless transitions between pitched and flat roof scenarios, Your frustration is understandable, given how frequently you rely on these tools. Rest assured, any enhancements we implement will aim to address these challenges and improve your overall experience. I’ll keep you updated on any progress we make on this front.
Thank you again for helping us improve!