robdyck

In this type of construction, there would be a significant airspace below the wood-framing. The 'vapor barrier' (6mil poly) would be serving as a soil gas barrier as well as a moisture barrier and would be on top of coarse gravel fill (the poly must be sealed, and weighted down and / or protected from damage). The coarse gravel fill would be on top of the excavation which, at least in theory, should be sloped to a central location to facilitate the installation of a sump pit which would be connected to a storm sewer or sanitary sewer and which could contain a sump pump if excessive groundwater is present. The coarse gravel fill allows incidental water to flow freely through it, reducing water pressure buildup and of course, it also allow soil gases, like Radon, to move through the gravel substrate and be expelled from the building by means of a soil gas vent.

It is a proven method as a solution to regional issues relating to the availability of ready-mixed concrete (very rural areas, the far north, etc). In its conception, it is part of a PWF (Permanent Wood Foundation) system that utilizes a pressure treated wood-frame foundation wall often on a gravel footing, and pressure treated wood floor on wood sleepers, raised above the level of excavation. It is part of a comprehensive foundation design system that clearly lays out the specifications to provide a structurally sound and well insulated foundation that uses no concrete. As it relates to the OP, it is an odd choice of construction assemblies, to choose a concrete foundation wall and footing, with a wood-frame basement floor, however that's not to say it doesn't have some benefits. Some of which could be: a more level and true floor surface, especially beneficial for interior partition framing as well as cabinet installation and plumbing fixture installation a warmer basement floor a floor that can be less subject to internal heaving due to expansive clay soils (if present) easier construction in winter, as temporary heating and insulating and covering would not be required as it would for a concrete slab eliminates concrete slab cracks telegraphing through a tile finish

You can do this, just not using a single callout. Use a cad line for the section cut line, assign it to its own layer, and place it behind the callout in the drawing order.

You need to check By Layer to have it controlled by the layer setting.

Copy one of the railing walls to a open area of the plan. Open the dialog box for that new railng wall. make the length 36" uncheck newels/posts close dbx (ok) convert to symbol

I've always used them and this is what I've found to be true.That being said, I suppress them for small roof planes OR I'll move them and use a leader line with a circle arrow head to identify small or thin roof planes. While I also dislike the lack of user control, I've felt the pros outweigh the cons.

I'd certainly want an engineer designed structural frame that would 'house' the opening and would remain square even if it were to shift beyond level or plumb.

Shadows below the terrain is one item that makes drop my face into my palms on a regular basis. The alternative would be to setup 2 cameras with different layer sets, send them both to layout, then resize the layout boxes at the terrain, so the top layout box displays everything above the terrain, and the lower box displays everything below the terrain. This would also take care of foundation line styles below grade, but I can't say I get paid enough to do that just for my own satisfaction.

This echoes my thoughts. I was expecting or hoping at least for some progress on fog, foundation lines below the terrain, no shadows below the terrain I was very disappointed to see that they would even mention the 'edit layout lines' as anything but the very last possible tool to use to alter an elevation view. I literally NEVER use that because you can't preserve your changes, and let's face it, clients love to make changes to completed plans. Also, if the model is spot on, its rarely required.

I would have assumed from her description, that she was not using a customized layer set, nor sending the views to layout using plot lines, would you agree? I can't say I have any line weight issues, as I have them all controlled by a specific layer set.

Launch help, type this 'Auto Rebuild Terrain' into the search bar. Let us know if you need more info.

I would assume that all of these types of doors allow for a reasonable amount of adjustment over time, especially considering that many openings wouldn't be level, plumb, square or true to begin with. The installation manual for one type is below, check out pages 48 and on to see the adjustment methods. https://panoramicdoors.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Panoramic-Door-Manual-Door-Install-Nov2018.pdf

I believe that was intended to be sent to the truss mfr. You get their drawings, and if this is simply a challenge for the sake of proving it can be done, I'll gladly take that on, and I'll post a video of the process. But I'm not a cart before the horse kinda guy. Approve truss drawings first! Then I'll model it in Chief to match their drawing exactly. I'll even include the mending plates.

This made me chuckle Chop! To be clear, I don't expect anyone to do this without drawings. I'd supply them with the pertinent info: run, pitch heel height, overhang, r.o. location in x and z axis. Their software handles the sizing of the various members.

Search for "bulkheads" in the library. Exterior Attachments is a bonus catalog.

Wrong, my friend, Chief CAN model it but not automatically. It would require manual editing. It is also an exercise in futility on your part, as any truss manufacturer would only need to derive (from your plans) the perimeter constraints of the truss, and the size and location of the rough opening. You and the truss supplier would be better served by a basic section view NOT displaying a truss, but rather the aforementioned information. IF you absolutely needed to show a corresponding view including the actual truss, it would be much simpler to provide the truss supplier with the view type I just mentioned, then have the truss supplier provide you with a CAD drawing of their resulting truss, after they have designed it and run it through their software to ensure the truss design is correct. You could use that CAD drawing in section view or you could place it in the TRUSS DETAIL and use it as a guide to edit the members of the truss.

You'll need to edit the truss detail.s

I'll also mention that by using variations of the materials list, you could produce 'cut lists' (essentially the piece by piece schedule) as well as the 'buy list'. There's no need for the builder to attempt to figure out what to purchase. Chief already has all this information.

This would be much simpler if you can stick to using a materials list, as opposed to a schedule. It'd be even smarter if the builder gave you the prices so you could build a material master list.

Where will the project be built? What type of assemblies are being used? Do you have any pictures of the model you can post?

If you can't find the exact material with a seamless texture, I'd suggest using a material that is as close as possible to the chosen material. You can always ask for help with that process here in the forum. I don't think it's likely that you'll successfully 'create' a seamless texture in any sort of a reasonable time frame. I would start by listing the exact material here in the forum, and asking for help with locating its texture or a reasonable alternative. How much time do you have available for texture creation? I can point out some methods I've used, but I'm hesitant to post them publicly because they will inevitably lead most users to more problems than solutions.

So you want to edit the truss detail? You can do it, it's just a bit of a tedious process, and you'll need to be very careful that it doesn't get 'undone'. Not knocking Chief, but my experience has been that the locking the webbing for a truss is less than reliable. That may have improved in X12.

The line weight is controlled by the layer settings. This is the first and best place to control the line weight. You could manually set each one in the dialog box as well. OR

It most certainly can and looks like it already has!

The footing will be placed directly under the foundation wall, NOT the slab. This means that for clean and neat alignment in Chief, the top-of-footing elevation needs to match the bottom-of slab elevation. Chief doesn't currently 'support' a notched basement slab. For your model, you have essentially 2 options: adjust either the foundation wall height or the basement slab elevation to produce a clean intersection leave it 'as is' and clean up the display in section views using CAD tools FWIW, I frequently do both, dependent on the construction preferences of my clients.