dshall

Wendy gave you one answer.

I think Boxon The Serb did a good job too. I think you should make the PSOLID BEAM higher so it does not stick down in the room. There is some "z" fighting with the fascia and drywall on inside, easy to fix by turning off the framing, but you should not need to do that. I do not know why that fascia planes out to the drywall. Why is the fascia/ridge beam, set back the thickness of the drywall? I don't know. Maybe this is something we should send in to the boys at headquarters and see if they can fix this. In regards to the framing not being perfect, I am with DJP on this, tough to get it perfect, the technical connections are probably better left to the CAD DETAILS at this time. I assume the boys at headquarters will eventually improve the framing as time goes on.

That is what I thought. You edited both the tops and bottoms of the walls. We all know that you can set a wall that follows terrain and that is stepped to a specific height. What you would get CJ is a top profile similar to what you have via editing........ so I am not sure you had to edit the top of the wall to get the steps at top of wall....... but I know for a fact to get the steps at the bottom of the wall and the footing at the bottom of the wall and the steps for the footing at the bottom of the wall, you needed to manually edit the bottom of the wall. So the question is, why can't we specify a stepped bottom of wall with footings at bottom of wall so that the footings are beneath the top of grade? Great post CJ. This should be in the suggestion forum.

I think CJSpud, by Buddy who lives in the Hinterlands nailed it...... and this is what bugs me........ the footings do not go below the terrain. CJ had to manually adjust the bottom of the footings so they are below the terrain. Does that make sense? Why can't we build what CJ built, but have a dvx setting where we can specify how much lower than the grade is the bottom of the footings, so we do not have to manually adjust the bottom of the wall. CJ, is that what you did? Did you have to manually adjust the bottom of the wall?

Hi Bill, I suppose I am confused as to where you are using that particular wall. Are you using that wall on the sides of the deck? You were not specific as to where you used the walls and you did not post a plan. As soon as I finish this little thing I am doing, I will do a vid..... I think there should be some good things that come out of the vid.

You need to be a bit more specific with the issue. I think you did a pretty darn good job. What do I think is wrong with your plan? 1. There is no edge to your deck..... I know how to fix this.... I do not like the result in plan view but I can fix that too 2. Not crazy about the handrail that sits on your roof..... I would rather a wall there that projects higher than roof surface (waterproofing issues) If you will be a bit more specific with 3 areas that did not work, I will see if I can do a vid...... there is some pretty good stuff here........

I have never had a problem creating a roof top deck...... and I did not use a terrain retaining wall. So Bill, how & why would I use a terrain retaining wall converted to a railing to create a roof top deck? And Michaelgia, why and how did a terrain retaining wall converted to a railing help you solve your problem?

I thought I used level zero for the foundation. I think on the last 500 projects I have used level zero as the foundation.

I think you got it at the end, not sure. The floor cannot be lower than top of footing...... but the footing can be 3.68 miles below floor. Here is a vid if it still does not make sense. http://youtu.be/Cki4DdTqDaU

Mick, again to restate, your footing elevations are controlled by the FLOOR THICKNESS. And this may be the way it works, but dollars to donuts, I bet the footing will be built at an elevation independent of the floor structure thickness.... The point being, I think you should control the elevation of the footings independently of the thickness of the floor structure, and the way to do that is by opening up the room dbx and changing the HEIGHT OF THE STEM WALL. Great subject guys, thanks.

Larry, this was the best vid you have done on the subject to date. But, but, what you did not talk about is....... HOW DO YOU CONTROL THE ELEVATION OF THE SLAB FLOOR INDEPENDENT OF THE ELEVATION OF THE FOOTING. This is something I have admittedly struggled with, not sure why, because there is a very simple solution, open the room and edit the HEIGHT OF STEM WALL easy peasy. And one other thing Larry, you mentioned that you did not have a foundation, I agree, we do not need a foundation level to do what you did. I think the foundation level should be reserved for MONO SLABS if they are needed. And as we nitwits in mono slab land understand, putting basements on LEVEL ZERO in lieu of LEVEL ONE, can be limiting..... I said "can be limiting", so I take your approach Larry, put the basement walls and footings on level one. Great subject Larry, I have been doing a lot of this lately.

Looks like you did it. Good job.

Can be done if you know what you are doing with stretch planes. I will give it a shot in the morning and do a vid. This could be a bit of a challenge.

Thanks Bill & JB, yes, that is what it is. I can like it then I can unlike it and then I can like it again.

Thanks Jon, I did to know that. And to be clear, one must put in 5m and not 5M for it to work. The units are case sensitive. Really nice tip Jon. And of course by using secondary formatting, you can either show both imperial and metric or only metric or only imperial. Very flexible.

Go here (library downloads) http://3dlibrary.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?r=site/library&reset=true&utm_content=&utm_source=VerticalResponse&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=&utm_campaign=Chief%20Architect%20Software%20News Now click on the CHIEFARCHITECT icon on the left. You will notice that the number 4 changes to number 5. Why?

The attached file does not appear to be an attached file. But I assume you know that now.

No, I have not seen that.

Can both of us get a point?

Absolutely, very very flexible, you can edit the anno sets whenever you want...... you owe me a brownie point.

I gave you brownie points for those answers.

Thanks a ton!

Please see attached pic. It shows PSF's of my plans using different icons. One icon is the typical PDF icon. The other icon is a little picture of the plan. Why are they different? Do they show up differently whether on my desktop or in a folder? When I email a pdf of my plans, often times it is the pdf icon view, other times it is a picture of plans in the body of the email. Is there something I am missing> By do I feel like a dunderhead. Thanks if you can help.

This is so funny, back in the day, mid ''70's, somehow we fit all of our houses on 18x24 paper. I do not know how we did it. Maybe smaller houses? I move from Houston to San Diego and 24x36 was the norm. It is a mystery to me why, I suppose because we had to not only put the plan on a single page, but now we also had to put the entire code book on each sheet. Now once in a while I have to use 30x42 and sometimes 36x48 size paper, what a pain in the arse. Match lines , smaller scale, or bigger paper? Match lines? Ugh......... who likes to flip between pages to understand the entire floor layout? Smaller scale? I would never go to anything smaller than 3/16" scale, but the problem is everybody will pull out the 1/4" scale, leads to confusion. Bigger paper? Nobody likes to roll out a set of plans on anything bigger than 24x36. The larger size plans never fits on a desk or the back of a pick-ups tail gate. Pic your poison....... maybe we should all have iPads to review the plans on.

Boys, Boys, let's play nice. You both have very valid points. Graham, please do not get too upset with Michael, I have met him, he ain't a bad guy, just maybe a bit grumpier than I. Case closed.