Alaskan_Son

Agreed. The one fairly notable problem I have with them is that like custom backsplashes, they don't behave properly at exterior corners. They are tied to the wall and therefore won't display past the exterior corner which means they don't overlap each other. I would use those tools a whole lot more if that issue would get fixed. I know I can fill in that outside corner with any number of methods, but its still a pain and shouldn't be necessary. Besides that though...yes...very cool tool...same goes for floor material region (I suspect a vastly underused capability).

Good tip!

I think perhaps you're misunderstanding something (or I'm misunderstanding you). Its not quite that complicated. Simply navigate to the Rails tab in the wall DBX, select the beam profile and adjust the width and height accordingly.

Consider just adding that block to your library then you still have it for re-use and can unblock the framing in your plan to solve the 3D view issue.

Probably best to start a new thread and post the plan. I would also suggest you watch a few tutorials, read through the reference manual, and/or use "Help". We're totally willing to help you out but this is one of those things that is covered pretty well elsewhere and requires that you understand how stairs work (including all the necessary steps to properly model them). In short though, I suspect you either haven't created a room on that upper floor for your stairwell (which can optionally be done using the Auto Stairwell tool) or that room definition has either been changed or was set up incorrectly to start with (Room Type needs to be Open Below).

Would probably be a good idea to attach the plan.

Appreciate the heads up Rich. I personally don't seem to have that problem though. I'm wondering if perhaps its specific to certain devices or systems. Doing a save as and using Windows Explorer seem to result in a nearly identical speed of data transfer for me.

I think the bottom line is that with a Monolithic Slab foundation, the slab is on the slab layer and can be turned on or off in a framing overview. With a Walls With Footings foundation, the slab is not actually considered a slab and is not on the slab layer. It is simply considered a floor surface and put onto the Floor Surfaces layer and cannot be moved to another layer. Floor surfaces is not the logical place to put a slab. If Joe (or anyone else) want to display his full mono slab (built using Walls With Footings) in a framing overview he must also turn on the Floor Surfaces layer which then displays unwanted items (i.e. subfloor).

Thanks Glenn, that helped lead me to a little better understanding. I think I've got it now... Material definitions (including material name and all other properties) are stored with the object. The Texture File (found in the texture tab) is a file that can be located anywhere on the computer. The file path just needs to be assigned to the Material. So...I can safely delete any "custom" Materials from my user catalog so long as any and all associated Texture Files remain. Furthermore, none of the Texture Files are actually located in the user catalog. They are simply referenced THROUGH the Material that is located in the user library. In other words (and to answer my original question)...It should be totally safe to delete items from my user catalog. P.S. I see now that you were saying the same thing Dennis. Thank you. I've added emphasis though just to clarify (both for myself and for anyone else who might have the same question). Until today I had never thought through the seemingly subtle difference between textures and materials.

I don't think its quite that simple. Here's an example... I can open a new plan and draw 3 exterior walls. They all have the default "Gray 3 siding". I can use the Adjust Material Definition tool, navigate to the texture tab, rotate the texture to 90 degrees, change the color to yellow, and that new material definition will stay with that wall even though no new material was created (you can search the library and there won't be a yellow version of "Gray 3 siding" anywhere). At this point I have 3 walls with vertical yellow siding. I can search "Gray 3 siding" in the library and then paint one of the walls and it will now revert to the original horizontal gray siding. Now I have 2 walls with vertical yellow siding and one wall with horizontal gray siding. I can close and reopen the plan and they remain the same even though there is still not a second version of "Gray 3 siding" in the library. I can then search "Gray 3 siding " in the library, right click>Show In Browser> and then copy and paste the material into my user catalog. I can then rename that material "Gray 3 siding 2" and use it to paint my 3rd wall. After doing that I can use the Adjust Material Definition tool, navigate to the texture tab, rotate the texture to 45 degrees and change the color to blue. Now I have 1 wall with vertical yellow siding named "Gray 3 siding", 1 wall with horizontal gray siding named "Gray 3 siding" and 1 wall with diagonal blue siding named "Gray 3 siding 2". I can go into my user catalog, delete "Gray 3 siding 2", and empty my trash folder. If I close and reopen the plan, I still have all 3 walls, they still retain the modified material definitions as well as the names even though I only have the original horizontal gray version of "Gray 3 siding" in my library. This tells me the material definitions as well as the materials themselves are being stored somewhere besides my user catalog.

I think part of my confusion lies with the fact that I can adjust a material definition (change the color, rotate the texture, etc.) and it will save with the plan even though a new material has NOT been added to my user library. Is this not true with all materials that exist in any given plan?

So, you are telling me that the user catalog is the only place that custom materials/textures can exist? I might add to your suggestion that you can also 3D>Materials>Create Plan Materials Library instead of creating the separate sub folder but this still puts the materials in the user folder.

I've never fully understood where a plan stores all of its materials/textures. I typically make a lot of custom materials for plans (slight color modifications, rotating the grain, etc.). Because of this, my user catalog has gotten a little messy and bloated (especially considering I haven't taken the time to create various files and organize it all). From time to time I'll go through and clean it up, deleting things I don't feel the need to keep. My question...When I delete one of those custom materials, will any plans using that material "forget" what material to use? Or is that information saved elsewhere as well? It hadn't occurred to me before just now that I could be messing up other plans by deleting those materials.

I don't know about the others, but I for one was only saying I have never seen or done mono pours that way. For standard stemwalls, you are correct...footer is always wider. We usually do those in 2 pours though.

For those who don't know, if you tile your views, you can use the north arrow and the sun angle dbx and watch your changes take affect as you make them. Rotating the north arrow won't change the lighting till you let go of the mouse button but changes made in the sun angle dbx are essentially real time (i.e. scrolling through the time of day with your mouse wheel and you can watch the shadows spinning around your model).

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".