rlackore

My mistake. I accidentally selected the wrong file when uploading. Here it is: Orion 46.plan

Curt, if you're addressing my latest post - it's not a symbol, it's a window stuck into a furred wall. Download the included plan file to see what I did.

Okay, here's my second try, still using a window, but putting it into a no-def furred wall assigned invisible materials. I'm not saying this how it should be done, I just wanted to see if it could be done. I like using windows for fireplaces because they are easily customized for most situations. Plan still requires clean-up. EDIT: I accidentally uploaded the old window symbol. Here is the plan file: Orion 46.plan

I missed that (didn't read down through the manual far enough). Thanks for picking up my mistake.

I use windows for fireplaces. Here's a shot at it (you can adjust the casing,etc. as necessary):Orion 46.calibz

Perry, it's not about the anchor bolts, is it? It's about the wall-to-sill plate connection. So, sure, there are lots of ways to ensure compliance with uplift requirements - I'm just pointing out that without sheathing extending down over the 2x8 plate, and without the anchor bolts extending up through the wall sole plate, you need to make certain you're designing the sill-plate-to-sole-plate connection correctly, and not relying on a framer to simply hammer in a few 10d commons at 24" oc.

I can't read the full article - I'm not a JLC member, but I was able to read most of the first paragraph. Based solely on that, I would say that it's unreasonable to expect that the every job will have foundation walls that are 1-1/2" out of level. Indeed, when it happens, creative framing or another solution is required - but that doesn't mean you need to incorporate a fix for every contingency into your construction drawings.

I understand some of the advantages mentioned by Michael, though it may complicate incorporating braced wall panels using any methods that require exterior wall panel sheathing, and ensuring a continuous load path for uplift. But, it's all in the details.

I'd consider that less than ideal. If you're forced to shim, you need to shim between the concrete and the first plate so the loads are transferred as evenly as possible. shimming between the plates may level the top of the wall, but you're not taking care of the root problem, which is the gap between the concrete and the plate.

What's the construction advantage to double-plating this condition? I'm not arguing, I'm curious.

Gene, that's the gravel base, not the slab.

You know, that's a good point. We can specify a lot of the rebar conditions in the Foundation Defaults>Options dbx. It wouldn't take much more for Chief to expand that tab of the dbx a bit, then include the rebar in the Auto Detail tool.

Doesn't Room Supplies Floor for the Room Above accomplish this? It allows independent control of the slab elevation using the Level 0 structure dbx, control of the stem wall height in the Level 0 structure dbx, and the width of footings in the wall dbx.

Here's another method: 1. Replace the interior grade beams with Slabs, and put them on the Footings layer: 2. Select the Level 0 room and set the Stem Wall (I) value to 16". (You already have the other two critical settings correct: Floor>Room Supplies Floor for the Room Above, and Floor Structure (L) set to 4"): 3. Select all four Foundation Walls and set the Foundation>Footing values to 16"x20". Also uncheck Center Footing on Main Layer so you can set the Footing Offset to -1": These few setting should give you what you're looking for: 1703plan-6.plan

Can't say - I live in Wisconsin. If CIP is mostly used in your area, and that's what contractors are used to doing, then there's a good chance it will be reasonably cost effective based on contractor familiarity and experience. But, it depends so much on the project: square footage, fire-resistive assembly locations and strategy, etc. I'm just saying that on most projects, it's been my experience that it's more cost-effective to design for the structure; this is especially true if you'll be customizing the interior build-outs on a per-customer basis (like a lot of higher-end apartments, penthouses, etc.), and the marketing folks can charge accordingly.

Pan deck? Structural slab? Precast with topping? A concrete deck reinforces my belief that you need to figure out the wall/floor system condition, and optimize for the design to favor the simplicity of the structural system, before worrying about the interior build-out.

You're going to pay the mason and steel crew a heck of a lot more than the carpenter and drywall crew. So much depends on the floor system you've chose to use, and the bearing conditions/requirements. 54" wide gypsum panels are designed to make things easy for standard wood-framed construction - which your project isn't. Besides, almost any gypsum panel product can be ordered in the length you need (though minimum orders are required). I would concentrate on getting the wall designed for structure and economy, then see where the floor-to-floor heights land, and then work on value-engineering everything within the building shell.

I don't believe so. Just like Chief, CAD programs allow the user to define an object's color either "by layer" or "by object". When importing a CAD drawing, any objects that have a color defined "by layer" will inherit the color assigned to the Chief layer they are imported into; any objects that have a color defined "by object" will retain that color definition, regardless of the Chief layer they are imported into. Chief's import process doesn't have the flexibility to redefine object color definitions "on the fly."

The attached picture is super tiny.

Yep, but if budget isn't a problem you can get a rig with dual 1080's and SLI: ...just sayin'

My copy of the NECA national standard is old (2006) - it was updated in 2013, but the 2006 version addresses photocell controls only in section 5.0 Motorized and HVAC Equipment - Controls: If the photocell is independent of the fixture (maybe it's controlling multiple fixtures), then the NECA standard symbol may be appropriate, but realistically it makes more sense to annotate the fixture symbol with 'PC', and define what 'PC' means within your own electrical symbol schedule: Or, if you're publishing a fixture schedule (or specification), identify the fixture on the plan, then specify within the fixture description that it is to be controlled by a photosensor:

He's looking at a laptop - much more difficult to swap or upgrade GPUs. Any laptop with a 16GB GPU is going to be more than twice the OP's presumed budget.

Maybe I misunderstood - by the title of the post I assumed you are trying to rotate a Section/elevation camera. If not, then Solver's advice should work. Sorry if I confused the issue.

Section/elevation cameras cannot be rotated.

I've noticed that if you work with multiple windows on multiple monitors, Chief often gets "confused" about what layerset/annoset is active for whichever window/tab has focus. This results in the behavior you've described with the dbx popping up. This behavior has been mentioned before on this forum (or maybe in the Suggestion forum), so it's a known issue - though I don't think anyone has resolved whether it's truly a Chief problem (bug, etc.) or a quirk of users jumping back and forth between windows/tabs.