JiAngelo

Sorry Whistler. I missed you stated bearings were in this format: 269°55'44 Add or subtract 180 degrees so that the result is within 0-360. It is the same as flipping a line bearing N60dE to S60dW which is what @robdyck's example above illustrates.

Surveyors generally start at a POB (place of beginning) and call out distance & bearings either clockwise or counter-clockwise until returning to POB and closing the polygon. Some lines like outer subdivision boundaries or ROW curves may conflict in bearing direction call out. Keep in mind n33d45'16"w = s33d45'16"e It's just the start and ends flipped. So for any line going the wrong way, delete it and re-enter with bearings reversed. Think of it as a video game and have the map in your head. After a few times you will start to recognize when the bearings head opposite and correct on the fly. Alternately markup the plot as a guide prior to input.

My bad. I found Canada also allows those winders treads to converge at 0. Sorry Michael.

All good. Note the OP clearly stated "the CAD drawings provided by the architect...but it seems they couldn’t properly construct the stairs and may have drawn them freehand."

Perhaps in your backwoods. But the Australian Building Code is based on the NCC which matches the ICC 6" (162mm) and 12" (254mm) minimums governing winders.

The attached images are code compliant winders. Winders cannot meet at a single point. Must conform with @para-CAD's instructions above. I normally draw these in cad, then create landings to match each one.

Sorry I misunderstood. Can you send an image zoomed out a bit so that i can see how the.planes are all interacting with one another?

Check your ceiling heights in both rooms. They need to be the same. The one that wraps looks like ceiling is a foot or so taller than the left room.

Doug, try this link instead. Maybe paste in a different browser. https://youtu.be/gdhulv9DetY?si=Chm9VEaKPFYIlSBa

I had a hard time envisioning what the user wanted to achieve. If the layout box doesn't change and we doubled the text size in the rows, then immediately there is a word wrap problem in "Size" and "Description" fields. At a minimum the box has be adjusted to resolve "Size" and columns 2-4 can't be sized any smaller than their current headings. Column 1 could be smaller and word wrap, but then the 3D image gets smaller. Column 8 could be smaller and word wrap, but Chief would need to know which fields can and cannot be word wrapped to programmatically resolve this on the fly.

http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread.php?59199-18x24-11x17

On Floor 0 your "0.2 m" Stem walls are 150mm outside of your upstairs walls. If you align these walls, Chief will automatically extend the exterior down to cover the flooring that the upper image left exposed. Below I only changed one wall (which turned off "Automatically Rebuild Foundation". Open up your "Brick-Thin" walls and change "Foundation to Exterior of Layer:" to "4 - Dark Red Brick" Turn back on "Automatically Rebuild Foundation" Hopefully this is the look you want. Most walls, like a siding wall, we build the foundation and floor deck to the frame layer and siding or stucco extend down over floor deck (and also the foundation if necessary, like stucco to grade, below a weep screed.) This is why you are seeing the floor cut your one brick layer, but doesn't cut the other brick layer.

Either, Left Room Floor = 0' & Right Room Floor = -10.5" OR, Left Room Floor = 10.5" & Right Room Floor = 0' Whichever side is divided into more rooms, then I'd make that side 0' Every room on the side that is +/- 10.5" has to be set the same +/- 10.5". Chief sees this as one building, floor = 0' everything benchmarks off of that. You don't get to build a second structure independent of the first it must bear some relation. This is not much different than a front porch, which I generally set to -8" where house floor = 0', Instead of a slab you want hung joists. The entry may be 9', but the porch is 9' 8" (assuming ceiling height didn't change (like when I drop the porch roof a foot to make sure it's roof clears the bedroom windows above. Then the porch room height is 8' 8". off the lower floor. Here's one I did a while back. Instead of "hung" we created a pony wall with the top 6" thick and the bottom 12" thick so that the joists would bear on the lower wall. OSB was flush with the top of upper wall. . I remember it took me a day to figure out how to get it right. This was on poured walls so I used different colored concrete to let me know where the floor trusses were bearing, but same concept. Chief's original company name was Advanced Relational Technology. All the rooms in a plan file are related, even if detached. I don't know who told you top down. It's first floor, then up for the upstairs and down for the downstairs. Based on the plan you draw and how you told Chief you want to build, it will finish the roof and basement for you. It will even draw the framing. If you left all those settings on default, then it probably won't draw what you want. Since your building experience is the same as mine, then surely you've built at least two houses in the same subdivision. Every plot plan in that subdivision has FFE, FGE, TOW and TOF reference points that are measured off the same baseline above sea level. Every house may have 9' basements, 2x10 joists, 9' first floors, etc... but their FFE, FGE, TOW and TOF's all vary - unless you live in Kansas. It's all relational and Chief looks at the overall plan in much the same way. I agree there are many unnecessary complications - to me. But they do mean something to others. And many times after I've figured something out, re-reading the instructions shows I just didn't understand what they were trying to say. Active views still drive me nuts on occasion. Hope this helps.

Check and see if this works better. You can cut and paste the elements over to your original plan if you like. Here I just, Transferred the Pinemont asphalt drive from modifications outlined above. Turned the existing concrete into its own slab. Used a 20 driveway centered on the angled road you had drawn. Ran this back at 20' wide parallel with the tank. Both these driveways have a 10' radius on either end. Created a smaller perimeter drive for the new slab connecting to the existing concrete and the radius drive to Creekmonte. Extended the smaller drive to match up with the asphalt drive coming from Pinemont. If I had the survey (it says that file is still sitting on your computer in a folder, not in the plan itself.) I would have added its language for you. Let me know if this helps. 670311519_SitePlan2-3.plan

#3 - The line removed going across property from Drive to past Creekmont Street? The only line I'm seeing is across Pinemont Road. I went to the end of it and dragged back the errant point. I then reconnected it and simplified the polygon points. #2 - Which lines are the survey lines? If it is the 2 arcs, they both travel past 90 degrees and aren't the same distance from the Piedmont. A straight line connection would cross both of them, so I moved it outward, 2" from 90 degrees at the lower, which is 1' 5-1/16" from the upper 90. I assumed you wanted the existing 18' asphalt drive to meet the upper radius point. And the bottom existing 18' asphalt drive line is 1-1/4" below the lower arc, so I just connected it. Is this what you are looking for? Someone moved your terrain to boundary property line layer. Chief didn't like that. I recreated another polygon to represent the P/L's and added 2' high fencing to remind me where those lines are in 3D view. I then switched the terrain to terrain layer and expanded it to encompass both roads at either end. This is what Piedmont looks like now. I can clean up the curb if you tell me I can cut back those radius lines to meet your road at 90 degrees. (the purple lines in first #2 image above.) #1 - 24' line sloped to side to meet new concrete drive which I again assume is the red radius lines below? and the that road you have running at an angle can be deleted? If so, I added a break to your new drive polygon at 90' gas left upper slab corner. I moved the other end of that line to the gas right upper slab corner. I created a parallel line across the way 24' added a measurement to show it is 24' wide. And promised myself not to ask why the new gas slab is 19' 2-1/4" wide The arcs at the street are 25'8" apart if you run parallel from the bottom one up. I then followed the same steps as #2 above to create this. Then created a road polygon and added some slabs (and 9' tall slabs w/ footings to represent the sheds.) Problem is I don't know if this is what you wanted. I would think you'd want the two driveways connected as one continuous length and I'd color the roads darker than the asphalt drives, then clean up the intersections. Let me know your thoughts..