Alaskan_Son

I guess I should have said I don't see how it could be done cleanly or "right". That all sounds very messy to me. What do you attach the exterior from board to? Are stakes permanently left in the footer? How do you make sure sure concrete actually fills that little horizontal footing extension? Its hard enough even with a straight wall to avoid "honeycombs". If Joe is right that they just backfill that exposed horizontal area during the pour, that sounds sketchy at best and could result in concrete that continue to ooze out and settle after the pour is complete. It could also very easily result in compromised concrete (with the introduction of dirt into the mix) and would more likely than not end up resulting in a "valley" between the concrete erupting from the footer and the main exterior foundation wall. I don't really want to get into it. Just mentioning the few things that come to mind. Suffice it to say I can see how someone would be at least entertained by the idea it could save money. I'm sure its different elsewhere, but we typically only use mono slabs in 2 situations around here... Frost protected shallow foundations (rarely if ever deeper than about 24") or for unheated detached structures (also rarely if ever deeper than about 24"). Both of which we find most efficient to pour with essentially just a thickened edge. If its not that shallow, we go straight to a full depth block or poured wall foundation to get below the frost line and everywhere except garages gets a crawlspace (sometimes even garages but I also think that is a sketchy practice). Any slabs are poured after the walls. Aside from commercial structures I for one don't see any benefit to a deep mono slab. I'm sure a lot of it is a climate thing though. Anyway, I'll stop now. Just my ramblings based on that design I've never seen before (and can't imagine we would ever use here in Alaska).

Are you asking if CA has any design ideas? Or do you have another specific option in mind? Answer to the first question would be no. CA is not the designer...you are. You simply use CA as a tool to make drawing easier. If you want design ideas you can post over in the chatroom section but there are really other forums better suited to that kind of question. Answer to the 2nd question is that you can draw up just about anything you want. You just have to figure out what you want and take it from there...either do a little more research as to how to accomplish it using the tools CA gives you or come back with a few more details as to what you're aiming to do and we can try to help you out.

I think notes alone suffice. I personally think that those break lines only add confusion. Its really hard to tell what they mean unless you already know what they mean. Something as simple as an arrow with... -"To 2nd floor" -"To basement" -"To first floor" -Etc. ...should work just fine. Maybe an additional or alternate note like... -"Stacked stairwells" -"(Stairwell to basement below)" -"(Stairwell to 2nd floor above)" -Etc. Beyond that, anyone that reads the plans should be able to find out pretty quickly when they read through the various floor plans and elevations that the stairwells are stacked.

I believe it can be done. Someone else can probably chime in but in my limited experience importing and exporting DWGs it is a very complex matter due to the way most AutoCAD users utilize their layers, pen settings, line weights, etc. and DWG files also seem to be a huge drag on the system in Chief. At least in my experience they have...anything with any amount of detail can really slow things down to a crawl. You would probably be best served learning AutoCAD or one of the compatible alternatives.

You know...I wouldn't knock it but I've never built (or even seen) a mono slab that way before either. Not even sure how one would go about pouring it in a single pour. I can see why it wasn't contemplated when developing the foundation tools.

I'm not saying its totally stupid or anything. There's some logic to it, just not a whole lot. There's a slab layer for a reason...its because concrete slabs are unique and structurally quite different from most other "Floor Surfaces". I think most anyone in the industry would place subfloor of any kind in a different category than slabs. Regardless though...having control over what layer various components are placed on would be a huge plus. Not only for this situation but for many many many others. I guess until that time there should maybe be a check box in the foundation room dbx. to "Display Floor Structure As Slab" or something along those lines.

I for one think that this particular issue has nothing to do with mono slabs. It has to do with the "slab" being placed on an inappropriate layer. Like with many things in Chief, I really think we need more control over what layer different components are placed on. Another very similar example: The way foundation walls with pony walls are displayed. There is no way to separate the automatically built pony wall from the foundation. They are stuck on the same layer.

I think you are correct Joe. The "slab" in a standard foundation is not actually built as a slab but rather as a thick floor layer. Seems like that should be fixed. In the meantime I'm absolutely positive you know this but you can display floor surfaces and use the Delete Surface tool to remove the ones you don't want to see...OR build an actual slab (may have additional benefits to going this route too). I know you prolee thought of all that stuff. Just throwing it out there for those who might not know any better.

You could probably do it with a rafter but that would be a huge pain. I think the method you mentioned works best. You really only have to do it one time though. Send the P-solid to a new plan, create symbol, and then just use the symbol for future instances.

Hey Brian, Open the room>Materials>Walls>Select Material>Use Default Material. I think at some point you may have painted the walls or changed the material through the room dbx. In which case I believe the ROOM will control the wall material from that point forward...until you check "Use Default Material".

As Shane said... Would be a good idea to post the plan. In the meantime, are you trying to paint the walls, use a material region, use a polyline solid, add a wallcovering, moulding...?

Your wording is a bit unclear. Are you trying to transfer an X6 file to room planner or transfer a room planner file to X6? As far as I know, you can only transfer Room Planner files to CA and not the other way around.

Silly me...I totally misread that first post. I had been thinking all along that the image was printing fine but not showing up in layout. My bad. Carry on.

Could be different for the OP but I did a test run with a JPG file myself earlier and checking that box didn't seem to make any difference. The JPG displayed perfectly well in plan and layout without it.

To be clear, it was me that suggested it might have something to do with macros. According to Dan, its not the macros, its other text settings. Anyway, just wanted to clarify so you didn't abandon your macros too quickly...it looks like those might not be the main issue with your labels. It may just be the other settings Dan mentioned.

Randy, You would probably be welled served to watch a few tutorials, and/or read through the reference manual and help files. There are almost too many options and settings to give you a quick answer. And to further complicate matters its impossible to know what exactly you're looking to accomplish...Your wall may need adjusting, your roof planes may not be sized right, your roof slope may not be right, the roof planes may be at the wrong height, or as I suspect is the case...a little of all of the above. You can start with David's suggestions and go from there though. Its just too hard to give an answer when so many things could be in play.

I opened your plan and layout but the JPG in question isn't in there. You'll probably have to "Backup Entire Plan" and then zip and attach that file.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with it myself. I could see where some people might though if they like to give countertops a different fill style and/or color especially. In that case, I think the best solution is #4 in my post above... "4. Adjust the transparency of the base cabinet fill or remove the fill entirely."

In your middle example, try giving the countertop a fill. This is where some people start to perceive a problem.

I think it may have something to do with your macros. I opened up your plan on my laptop and the layout was pretty slow for me as well. I turned off room labels though and it sped right up.

As I see it, currently there are 4 basic solutions... 1. Adjust the transparacy of the countertop and leave it at the front drawing group. This has the downside of affecting the way the upper cabinets visually display. If transparacy is adjusted all the way to 100% it defeats the purpose of using a fill though which brings me to option 2... 2. Give the countertop no fill. This has the obvious downside of giving the countertop...well...no fill. 3. Give the base cabinbets and countertop the same fill color and send the countertop to the back drawing group. 4. Adjust the transparency of the base cabinet fill or remove the fill entirely. I think the latter 2 options are equally good.

Sorry Mark, I tried to give you a point and ended up hitting the negetive point button instead so I'm gonna give you 2 points on some of your other posts. Anyway...just so you know where that negative point came from.

Thanks Mark! Super usefdul tip. I had no idea it was as easy as hitting the alt key. A little while back I figured out you can left click to start operation, and right click off screen to get the same functionality but the alt key is so much cleaner. Thanks again : )

I thought you might understand the process. Your original post was just extremely vague and had no screenshots, plan, or method description so it was hard to tell. Anyway, I figure even if the video doesn't help you it might help someone else and it usually helps me too. "Cheers" to you as well

Here's a quick video... http://screencast.com/t/ddq7igYh