Version 1.15 of the TF Rubies is now available. As always, the latest version can be found here, along with details about what's new:

http://www.northernlightstimberframing.com/su/

CB.

Clark,
I have a question about making shop drawings. If I right click on a simple post that has only a top tenon the shop drawing doesn't come out right. The post ends up as one long timber with three different tenons in different directions. I know I'm missing something pretty basic but am not sure what. If I add the 10x10 post from your timberframe component library and select make shop drawings it comes out ok. If I add a tenon from the joint library and select both the post and tenon, then select make component and set gluing plane (selecting all and setting the three points)then save it, it doesn't come out right when I make shop drawings. What am I doing wrong?

Thanks for all of your time and effort with this program,
Tyson

Tyson:

It sounds like the tenon (joint) component is not a sub-component of the timber. You must be editing (inside of) the timber component at the time you pull the joint component out of the library. If you're still having trouble, you can email the skippy to me, and I'll take a look at it. CB.

I would like to add gratitude and accolades for Clark, who has taken a personal interest, a generous attitude and lots of caffeine, and melded them into a powerful drafting and design tool, useful and accessible to nearly every timberframer in the world - and especially to framers of limited means.

-Joel McC

Thanks Clark for update and a great "ruby"

Finally got the timbers and joints working in my component library. Question, do you recommend, we resize our joint library to full size or nominal(My design uses 1" housings)?

Some of the joints in library have reversed faces, some not. Is there a reason for this? Please note that your 10x10 housing is 10x12.

Thanks for the preferences file, in my case not all F function work? F11, ok, F6, F7, and F8, not. I have alot of other SU rubies enabled so I believe I will need more two or more preferences files for shortcuts.

SU7 maybe coming out by google, have you heard anything?
Cheers
alpmeadow

Hi Irv.

Regarding timber sizes, what do you do in the shop?

Do you buy full size, plane to nominal, then use mill rule? Or do you by full size rough and then square rule to nominal? Then I'd model your timbers at 1/2 under.

Or, if you buy 1/2 over, and plane to full, or work in the rough and mill rule, then I'd model the timbers at full size.

Regarding the example library, there are errors and reversed faces, yes, but nothing intentional. That was my first library, so probably not my best work :-) My nominal library is much cleaner. I'll probably post that one of these days.

Regarding shortcut keys, not sure why they didn't work. Maybe you need to have a component selected when you import. F6-7-8 do the flip-along commands, which require a coponent be selected when you manually set the shortcuts. No word yet on the usual sites regarding SU7.

Clark,
That was it exactly! I knew it was most likely something simple.

Thanks,
Tyson

Thanks Clark
I got F6, F7 & F8 working also, it was my problem not yours. I mill my timbers with a woodmizer so I have a choice, I mill rough full size and plane down, so the 1/2" under for nominal seems reasonable. Do many timberframers prefer to specify 1/2" over or some other oversize (softwood spec different from hardwood) as a general rule?

The question for SU7, is there a wish list that would make TF'ing on SU better? My preference is perhaps a ruby that models a solid timber for export.
Cheers

Well, now you're crossing over from a software question to a shop practices question :-) And there are probably many correct answers.

I've had my timbers sawn 1/2" over then surfaced to full dimension, and then mill ruled (that's the easiest, but most expensive). Or sawn full dimension, and surfaced to 1/2" under, then mill rule. Or sawn rough to full size, but planed "until smooth" in the shop, then square rule to 1/2" under. Right now, I'm working on an oak frame where the timbers were rough sawn to full dimension, then planed at the mill to a 1/4" under, and I'm square ruling to 1/2" under (trying to guess at how much each piece will shrink :-).

In my opinion, there's no need to model the square rule reductions on your shop drawings. Model the "perfect timber" inside, making sure to indicate the reference faces. Then, when doing layout, add the reductions on the fly where needed to bring the actual timber in line with the ideal timber shown on your shop drawings.

Regarding SU7, you can wish all you want, but the TF market couldn't be more insignificant to Google. CB.

Thanks clark, this is what I hoped to hear.

Your right again regarding Google, however there are many non TF (woodworking + architecture) SU users, that have developed amazing talents and skills that may be transferrable to TF use.
When SU7 comes out perhaps there will be interest to discuss this further.
Cheers

Please note that my opinion on how to model square rule timbers is just that: My opinion. I've seen people modeling the reductions, which does have a benefit: It gives the customer a more accurate picture of what their frame will look like. It also moves the reduction decision off the shop floor and into the office. I'd be curious to hear other opinions on this topic. CB.