Foundation Method

[Anonymous]

I am curious as to how others are modeling and documenting foundations. In a residential project I typically like to show my floor framing with my foundation plan (perimeter foundation). In this case the footing is usually represented by a dashed line and the stem walls are shown with solid lines. In the case of a slab on grade the inside edge of the footing is shown dashed, outside edge of slab/footing is solid. In both of these cases I want the linework to be solid in section/elevation. AFAIK if I use the wall tool to model the footings I cannot have them shown with different line types in section and floor plan. The slab tool allows this but seems much less friendly for this type of modeling task. I got good results using the offset tool/magic wand for edge footings by tracing the perimeter of a slab, but this wasn't helpful for footings on the interior of the slab. Every building has a foundation so I'm sure this has been worked out. I've only been using AC part time for about 2 months so I'm still developing my methods and techniques. Your help has been extremely appreciated. I also don't want fills in plan but I do in section, I know, I'm picky.

[Rick Thompson]

Matthew wrote:
So Rick,

Tell us how you do it. I can't find any setting that fixes it as you show. Inquiring minds want to know.

I'm sorry...duh my head was somewhat elsewhere, I should have checked and said. I am not at my blessed (keyed) computer, so even though AC is on... it I can check how it was set up. My template is fairly old.. so am I. I think the composite is set with a solid heavy line, and it is overridden in the tool setting with a dashed line. Section is set to use composites settings. If that is not right I will check when I get back to the office. Since I work at home it would not be a problem.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Rick.

I'll have to check it when I've got AC running. Unfortunately this ends us up with another partial work-around, making the new composites line types only partially functional.

[Anonymous]

I am not making any progress with this situation. If it can't be done without 2D work arounds then it should definately be on the wish list IMHO. If it isn't already on the list than I would be honored to post it(My first wish)! I will wait another day or so to see what solutions we can come up with. In the meantime, I know there are more of you power users out there with experience in this area, don't make me mention any names. Thanks again for this excellent source of info! It won't be long untill I have more to offer.

[Anonymous]

Mark,

I think you should go ahead and post the wish. Rick's method is a partial workaround and I am pretty sure there is no other way. The only question is how it should be done. It seems it could either be fine tuned control in the composite settings or a simple override in the element's section settings (or both).

[Vitruvius]

Well, I think we've totally confused poor Flamer.

It seems that in 8.1 the Wall Tool linetype selected for the plan also applies to the section, so...some good thoughts on work-arounds have been suggested:

1. Define a composite wall to display the 2D footing as dashed - downside being that you're constricted to a predetermined width.
2. Define the Wall Tool linetype as dashed - downside is you've got to trace the sections with a solid line (easy but not elegant).
3. Create a footing symbol to undercut the foundation wall - downside being that you need some GDL skills to manage this elegantly.
4. Create a "footing" wall and "chop the top" using empty window symbols and define the window sills as dashed lines - downside ... fussy.
5. Put the footing wall on a separate layer for "3D display only" and simply draw the 2D dashed lines.

I think Flamer has found a weak link in the wall tool display - the plan linetype and section/elevation linetype shouldn't be linked. In any event, any thoughts on which of the five scenarios would offer the best solution?

I'd guess number 2 would be OK as a quick workaround - 3 would be preferable for those versed in basic GDL.

Cheers, Cameron

[Rick Thompson]

Matthew wrote:
Thanks Rick.

I'll have to check it when I've got AC running. Unfortunately this ends us up with another partial work-around, making the new composites line types only partially functional.

I have to defend GS on this one. I think the system allows you to do whatever you need, with great flexibility. I am not sure what your wish is, you can already have what you want with one simple tool setting. Maybe I am missing something, but it is quick to do without any fuss, solid in section, and dashed (or not) in plan... for any composite.

[Rick Thompson]

Vitruvius wrote:
Well, I think we've totally confused poor Flamer.

1. Define a composite wall to display the 2D footing as dashed - downside being that you're constricted to a predetermined width.


Cheers, Cameron

I find having predetermined widths a valuable tool. It is fast to select the appropriate footing without setting anything, and more important allows linking a property script to each defining appropriate rebar. Laying out a foundation is very fast having these predetermined... there are normally only so many, at least for me.

[Anonymous]

Rick, Could you elaborate on how you are getting dashed in plan / solid in section? If you are using 2D lines, thats fine I can live with that for now, but I don't want to miss out if there is a more direct way (Through settings ect.)

[Anonymous]

Rick, Could you elaborate on how you are getting dashed in plan / solid in section? If you are using 2D lines, thats fine I can live with that for now, but I don't want to miss out if there is a more direct way (Through settings ect.)

[Rick Thompson]

Flamer wrote:
Rick, Could you elaborate on how you are getting dashed in plan / solid in section? If you are using 2D lines, thats fine I can live with that for now, but I don't want to miss out if there is a more direct way (Through settings ect.)

this screen shot (actually 2 stuck together) has all the settings for the composte wall and for the tool. If this is not clesr ask, but it is probably better than I could describe...