SHCanada2

I see a lot of plans from others in my work up here in the north. The vast majority of new single family home construction plans I see combine a basement plan and foundation plans into one. joist direction and sizes are noted, but there are never joist and truss plans, because they come from the truss and floor manufacturer. Your comment that "Yes, for drawing a walkout on level 0 you would have to adjust the floor heights of the room that supplies the garage footings/stepping, keep in mind that there is a lot less liability keeping auto foundations on and working for you as opposed to manual foundations. " is a bit perplexing. I do the basement on floor 0, if it was wrong then I am drawing or changing the wall locations to be wrong, the foundation walls are the basement walls, so there is no chance they are different. it would be, I would think, the same thing for your floor 1, if you draw it wrong then the auto foundation would be wrong. I'm not sure what the difference is? Not to mention you have to copy and paste the garage walls, which means if you change them, you have to go and change the copied walls. for this: Correct, but you are still having to manage the room height since you dont want your stem walls 8' under ground You do not have to manage the garage foundation room height on floor 0. I build floor 1 with auto build foundations on, I draw the attached garage, then in that garage room you set the stem height. you never have to touch the garage room height on floor zero. This is what I do in the garage room. it gives the 12" concrete wall above grade. you can alter the stem height even after auto build is turned off I personally prefer separate foundation and basement plans(I have 2 different SPVs/def sets for notes, dims etc), but I am not in the majority from what I have seen around here. I can see why they combine them, normally there might be 2-4 footings, so its not a lot to add them in on the query, why not use the more flexible option, I think the answer up here is, they are almost always done the one way that I have shown below (Foundation cribbed, then slab poured, then furred walls and daylight walls framed. The only downside that I see for this canadaland scenario, drawing on floor 0, is one has to set the walls as having a pony wall. Everything else AFAICT seems to be standard CA workflow, and there is no copying/pasting of walls. But I do mainly reconstructs in these scenarios(the last new build walkout I did was last year or the year before), so I only see the plans given to me for most of my work. Rob is the one designing them up here on a daily basis, he would have the ins and outs of any "workarounds" some examples of foundation plans I have had to reconstruct with elevations below. the last two are essentially the same plan, but one is a walkout, so you can see what changes they made (the walkout wall shows as a normal wall is the most obvious) here is a duplex with a separate found plan: another duplex walkout version

did you set to to replicate to the cloud onthe as built app?

hmm, and you click on it then clicked rebuilt framing for object?

for the second roof plane, did you try and go into it and change it to 9.25"

Looks like you may not be showing the corresponding layer. Try switching to the all layers layerset to see 8f the elevation shows correctly

The other common reason for not being able to select a room is it is not actually closed in by drawn walls. If you have foundation walls on floor 0 they will create attic walls on floor one. These will make it look like you have walls enclosing a room...but you really do not

assuming the room structure has the top plate set correctly, I think will merely move the roof structure up. i do this quite a bit for teusses

this is also interesting: shows the rimboard, and something else below it, even though the room divider has white siding for both sides of the divider. any thoughts on this? Pull the wall up?

hmm that doesn't work, because it is missing the OSB sheathing. any other ideas other than creating a new siding material that is thicker by 3/8?

I assume these must be edited or manual roof plans? did you try and move the roof plane in the Z direction using transform replicate?

they appear and don't appear simply by updating the view. sound like a bug vs an intended design needing an improvement suggestion

but that is not how it is commonly shown here. It is commonly shown as a furred concrete wall on the sides and a regular wall on the end. You would have to draw these different walls on your floor 1 (or show it differently), and sure the auto build foundation then builds on floor 0. But you still have to draw it on floor 1(or do something to show it differently). If I leave auto build foundations on and then change the end wall to a regular wall on floor 0, I'm having to draw or change the different wall. sounds to me like the same amount of steps. And there is not the copy and paste garage foundation walls issue if one draws on floor 0 I don't know I think we should have a bake-off, and count the steps.

garages here typically have the concrete stem wall above grade. Would you then create a pony wall? Or can you still achieve this with the garage room setup: I read and watched the video(Saw the different floor setups) and the blog post I noticed you had to exclude the room below the garage from the area analysis. Which a person would have to do with the found on floor zero as well (although I exclude it in an OIP so the schedule does not show it, as even a non walkout regular basements have this "room"). I'm not sure the savings there? For western canadaland where 99% of houses have basements with 8" conc walls, the walkout stem wall is still 8 in. The slab is poured independently. There are then furred walls built on the interior of the basement which typically go to the ceiling but not always I already have an SPV for the foundation, and the normal SPV for the floor(which works for basement on floor zero, main on 1, etc) I'm struggling to know what the advantage of the floor 1 foundation is for this western canada scenario? I don't do a lot of these, but I don't remember any issues, maybe the wall intersections had to be adjusted....or maybe i have a bad memory here is how one of the other guy's shows it n plan view, which is typically how i show it (concrete furred walls on side, normal wall on end. Although he also shows it wrapping..to each his own i guess)

i did and they said to, as Robert says, "select items and set the label to 'show' in the view."

go into the defaults->dimensions, and setup the temporary dimensions(for the dimension set you are currently using) to find interior walls. That being said, it comes out of the box finding interior walls for temporary dimensions. you might want to post a short video on what you are trying to do

my decks are set to build with beams and piles....not sure what happens if over a room, plus as brett says the annoying deck over a room message

what did you use/cover the rim joist. Scott's demo plan uses a molding polyline. But if I just want the wall cladding to extend up over the rim joist, is there an easy way? I painted it, but not the greatest look:

that makes more sense than a simple default value. the conversation reminds me of this software I used many years ago. it could only output a number. One day it spit out something like -125. After much investigating and calling the software vendor, the software was supposed to spit out -999 when something went wrong, but it did unit conversion after setting the value to -999, which resulted in the very odd -125. ...yes kids back in the day when software was so archaic and maybe trying to save on memory, error codes were represented as special numbers in the same field that was supposed to get you your result

hmmm, still doesn't print correctly. it's weired because it is not the same window(s) every time

how does the user know if it is working? They would have to know the default value is the error condition. If the default result (as a result of an error) is then used in another calculation, the default(error) value is then obfuscated from the user. For most cases I am fine with the CA error as it catches errors (as opposed to crashing), and it is very glaring that it is not working as it spits out ERROR. That then tells me I need to fix something. I suppose if one could deduce the error and output "bad length" then that would help, but I would perceive that as a error message vs a default value I perceive error conditions as different that a default value. I perceive a default value as something that is normally used, and the user can change it it they want something different, but they are conscious of that decision In the ideal world, the result would be able to produce both a value and a data quality...but that would be way to much work to implement, and the data quality would have to be baked in CA somehow with a different text color or inverse video or something to show the user that something is not quite right. anywho my two cents, take it for what it is worth. I'm probably just overthinking the term "default"...it is a late saturday afternoon

they do get the values from the row object, for at least for the scenario I have, as shown above. Perhaps this issue of non calculation is limited to the scenario where one macro is dependent on another field's macro being evaluated first, as you suggest

ive seen this as hit or miss. I have an OIP in the room that checks properties of the room and floor number, and then assigns the area to the OIP in the room based on some logic These seem to work fine in a schedule. But When I was trying to do something on a window label, it sometimes worked and sometimes didn't. One schedule would work, and then I would copy the schedule and it would not work. it looked like a race condition between the schedule and the window label when you say "Calculate incorreclty" do you mean return error, or something else? so it should be interesting to see what they come back with for example in my room I have: and that macro is: and the schedule is The above all works fine: schedule is one line, shown below:

...interesting....

anyone seen this behaviour? Updating the layout causes window labels to show then not show Screen Recording 2026-08-13 150124.mp4 he layout boxes seems to cause different window/door lables to appear, but never all of them at the same time

that does look good...in under a day