dshall

Incorrect, I was wrong again.....

I would bet it is because it is a BEARING BEAM, and the top of beam is higher than bottom of deck joists...... just guessing

I disagree, X7 has been an excellent release for me. Not a lot of bells and whistles, but a stable release...... I am on a MAC.

Many ways to achieve what Todd wants, but Glenn's solution was the first method that popped up in my mind. I think "3"3 is the break tool hot key, hit the 3 twice and then hit the line you want to break. I use this tool all the time.

A final comment, Joe talks about detailing the footing like this because it saves concrete, I agree, but if we can not model it correctly, the M.L. Is not accurate. CA should be reprogrammed to allow this shape for a mono slab. This is a very subtle design feature. This is nothing new, especially for big home builders who build multiple houses. The savings in concrete can be significant.

Clever Glenn but almost useless. I cut a section thru a house, I have a two story footing on left side , I have a one story footing on right side, hence stem wall heights and footings depths are different, your method does not work. Again, I have been talking about this since mono slabs first came out, and there has been no attempt to program this correctly. I have given up. Maybe at the UGM we can discuss this. I know Scott Harris is very interested in our input.

There are multiple ways to do this. Do a search or wait for the different options. Personally, I would define the deck with an invisible wall and then I would make the railing out of a molding.

Assuming you do not use auto foundations, and I do not..... there is nothing that says foundation need to be on level zero. I did a vid on this so.... listen to this..... if you are not doing auto foundations, (and maybe if you are), there is nothing magic (in my mind) with foundations being on level zero. Try putting the foundation on level 15, or 16 or 17. Who cares, it is not important. What I am saying is, try to learn what is truly important. What Joe and Perry are saying, and I agree with them, have the basements on the first floor and if needed, you can always have a level below on level zero to build a mono slab. You must learn to "own" CA and make it do what you want it to do. I say that you can have your lowest floor on level 17 and then built a foundation on level 16, who cares? It gives you the flexibility to quickly and easily add additional levels. It is akin to my advocation of having more levels than I have floors. If I am building a 3 story house, so what if I have 13 different levels to my model. I can use or not use all 13 levels. Learn to "own" CA and make it work for you.

Okay, how did you do that Glenn? How do you do it without the brick rebate?

Alan, during the next big golf tournament you should invite all the riff raff including me up to your place for the weekend. We could have a lot of fun.... I will bring the ribs for the bbq.

Here you go Mickey Too http://youtu.be/IF7diAR8E1U nothing new

Thank you Joe for confirming what I am talking about. So to restate what I think should happen, and I have been talking about this for years, in a mono footing situation the slab should be connected to a footing by a "stem wall". Not a stem wall in the convention use of the word, but for lack of a better term, the usage of "stem wall" works. Just a side note....... I think I just noticed something else that was wrong with mono slabs prior to X7, has now been fixed in X7...... thanks I think..... I have not spent much time exploring mono slabs in X7, but I think something is working better than it was.

I meant stretch planes, not cut planes, post a small plan and I will do a quick vid if you want.

Of course you can, but you cannot control the depth of the footing.... there is a stem wall that should connect the footing to the slab, we should be able to control the distance from the bottom of the slab to the top of the footing, and this would be doable if CA was programmed to recognize a "stem wall" .

I do not think I ever said it worked. I could do it, or should I say I have done it, but it was definitely more trouble than it was worth. To restate what I am talking about and what I think JC is talking about, take a look at the pic..... it is the "toe" that is formed auto when forming a mono slab..... in CA this can not be done without a lot of work.

I think you can but it is not worth the effort. I agree with you Joe. Joe, I have been fighting for this since the beginning of the mono slabs. I gave up. In a nutshell I think what would make JC happy is if the mono slab footing was made up of a FOOTING, a STEM WALL that sits on the footing, and then the SLAB that sits on the stem wall. This way, we could offset the FOOTING from the STEM WALL, if you know how mono slabs are formed, this would make sense. As of now, I believe the mono slab footing are only made up of a footing. I did many vids on this back in the day, nobody but maybe the PMan listened, I gave up.

I agree, it cannot be done auto, must be done manually. Again, if anybody comes across a mono slab issue, lets's post it here, if we can not solve it, we will send it on to Scott Harris. If you describe something without a plan, I ain't guessing and I ain't looking. Please post a plan so we are all on the same page.

Joe, I have been fighting for this since the beginning of the mono slabs. I gave up. In a nutshell I think what would make JC happy is if the mono slab footing was made up of a FOOTING, a STEM WALL that sits on the footing, and then the SLAB that sits on the stem wall. This way, we could offset the FOOTING from the STEM WALL, if you know how mono slabs are formed, this would make sense. As of now, I believe the mono slab footing are only made up of a footing. I did many vids on this back in the day, nobody but maybe the PMan listened, I gave up.

Perry, do you have a slab that your can not lower a couple more inches? If so, post it and I will see if I can do it. If not, this is one of the bugs that Scott Harris was interested in seeing so I would like to send it to him. I think I can do most anything with slabs, if anybody can't do what they want with slabs, I wish they would post it, I will make a vid to see if I can do it, and if I can't, I will send it to Scott Harris and he will have it fixed because he is a big muckity muck and he gets things done. And he ain't a bad golfer.

Nice job JC. Now for those of you who want 2 panels and 3 posts, simply take JC's symbol, over lap the center post, turn into NEW SYMBOL with new locations of cut planes..... but I am sure everybody already knew that.......

I agree, however if you look at the plan, the roofs on each side of box window are not located in the same location in plan view and the interior view is a mess. If both of those issues are not an issue, then it is fixed.

P. can't you send the plan to tech and between the two of you guys come to some agreement that either the plan is slower or faster in X7.

Alan, your situation was not like mine. You are using the box window. I would never use that. I never use that (I used it once I think), I always have problems with it. Take a look at an interior view, it is a mess. Maybe someone else can give you a quick solution, if not, if I have time I might do a vid on how I would do this. It probably is fairly easy to do if you do not use the box window option. Hopefully someone can prove me wrong and make it work with a box window. We will see. Maybe that person can fix it using the box window solution and then post the plan.

Alan, the Layout is there but no plan.

Alan, I have experienced this only once before, and I was never able to figure out the problem. I will take a quick look...... no matter what I figure out, I think you might want to send this into tech. Mine was not based on the window box.