dshall

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.

Do you have a pic of a plan you can share?

I gave him 2, he should be in the positive.

Thanks DG, that is what I thought, I was just misunderstanding what I was looking at in his vid.

I get that, but it is not emitting light. I do not think it is working like I was hoping. Bottom line, the LIGHTING MATERIAL does to emit light.... and I think I knew that, I was just hoping that DM came up with something new.

No, I did not flip light because I think it was the molding that was given a LIGHTING material. He did not use a light source for the molding. I might of been looking at it incorrectly. That is why I was asking.

The Great David Michael of ChiefTutor did a rope lighting video for us. I love to watch that guy work, he is so fluid with very little waste of motion. Back to the point. When I first watched the vid, I loved the way he added a LIGHTING material to the molding. It looked like it was casting light on the ceiling, great, but when I tried it, I could not get the molding to CAST LIGHT on the ceiling above. What do you guys think was going on. Was the light that I thought was being cast on the ceiling actually the molding? Comment, notice he used a 3d molding pline, not a 2d molding pline, why? Does it make a difference? Here is a link to his vid. http://www.chieftutor.com/CUSTOMERS/RopeLight/RopeLight.html

I downloaded file, opened file, opened YOUR camera, and this is what I get. It looks good to me, I am on X7.