Umm, I don’t quite see where you are going. The longitudinal beams are meant to carry the load to the short walls. The little bits of wood between the beams are there just to make things look neat and make a place for secret treasures. They may not do so in a reasonable fashion. I hope I get to the point where an engineer looks over the plans and says ‘that’s stupid’.
I’m not sure why this would be a problem, but then I am really only sure that I need to lose 20 lbs. So why is this bad?
Thank you tons for your help and humor. I really appreciate it.
Here is the next version of my model Small Library. I hope I have cleaned up all the wacky geometry from my 1/16" mistake.
I have left the new parts as default texture, which will hopefully make things clearer. I am working on the roof framing, and am doing an job of it. I also need to figure out how to get some winders* up there.
Does anyone have an opinion on the bay window height?
I have included a “proposed” change in the loft floor plan. I am curious what folks think of it. It gives me another 40sq ft of floor space, bring the total added floorspace to nearly 200sq ft. My old machine shop was 200 sq. ft, so it seems sort of extravagant.
Thank you for reading along. I wish all a great weekend.
That the Loft Beam sits on the short outside wall seems fine. It’s those “little bits of wood” that seem, different. Those filler pieces could be upright/perpendicular to the wall, so there would be ‘pockets’. But the one on the right in the image (Loft Center Joist) adds to the ‘sumptin ain’t rite’ vibe here. For example, if you are going to finish the lower walls, will the walls on the outsides of the center beams be flat as they go up into the 2nd story but the center will have a small corner to get around the Loft Center Joist? If not, then why is that LCJ right next to the other LCJ that is acting as a ‘little bit’ of header? But if there is finished ceiling, then that finish can’t be between your beams. So, if it were for screwing off sheetrock, it’d be too low. Also, there’s 14.5" between the LCJs. Taking out 1.5" by removing that end one and you could distribute that into the overall spacing (get rid of it unless you need the 16 on center, or move everything over 1.5).
That little line there is sub-contractor debris that they left stray. At some point, if you build and remodel this down the road, you’ll also likely find a dried possum between the wall ‘floor joist’ and the Loft End Joist.
This is the loft subfloor jutting into the wall by ~1’ 11/16:
If this building were to have a ‘regerler’ floor, you could just sheet it then build your upper level wall there and tip them up. In other words, the wall could sit on the sub floor (that’s why I said it is sitting up on the wall (plate). That might be okay. Don’t take my advice on how to build this thing. You need to talk to a contractor or building inspector to see how much the bribe is to have your plans certified ‘correct’.
It seems like you’re basically on the right track. A little touch up on the subfloor 16ths. Check those corners and take a look at options for building the top of your wall/floor. Keep in mind how the finishes are going to look and if they work with the beams (which I take you want to highlight) and the wall/beam connections.
Of course I am still confused. Unfortunately, this is normal. The LCJ that I think you are speaking of is for attaching the sheetrock that will make the Loft Bottom Ceiling (LBC). I plan on the loft framing to be completely wrapped in wallboard of some type (WOST). Below is a picture of the LBC with WOST.
But now that you mention it, exposed beams might be kinda nifty. Hmmm. Maybe just the outside of the beams. I was planning on having LBC lights (thus wiring). I also am toying with a model railroad (HO or O gauge) running through some tunnels in the loft floor. I can dream…
You are correct that the other loft end joists could be small perpendicular bits. Of course, I would love to chat with an engineer about this.
Does this help clarify things, or just muddy the air more with flim jetsam?
Cheers,
Tom
PS. I had a paper some years ago in which I introduced at least 5 acronyms to the evolutionary biology community. I am very pleased to know that 3 of them are still in wide use! Including my favorite, MRCA (pronounced 'merica).
Hey - I may have lost the plot on what you are trying to achieve. The way you’ve explained the rock makes sense to me. As long as we’re having fun talking about your model, I think we’re good.
The other issue has more to do with framing techniques. I’ve built houses from foundation to roof… but that was a long time ago and I wasn’t the foreman. So, I don’t have all of the terminology at the ready. Let’s say your outside walls look like they are pocket beams to me and that doesn’t seem correct.
The two ‘styles’ that are more familiar to me look like this (ignore the red arrow… best example I could find in a pinch):
Here beams are connected with hangers (not what you are doing) and set on the wall (what you are doing). But you are enclosing the interior space with shorter boards. That’s why it sort of looks like a pocket beam to me. Not saying this is ‘wrong’. But it seems to me that would be open or there would be blocking.
What I mean about the corners is that the outside sheathing has no place to nail of the corner edge, so the sheathing is a ‘hanging corner’. I think that needs a ‘California corner’, …or something to nail to.
Interesting that you mention publishing in evolutionary biology. I have a psychology degree with a concentration in behavioral neuroscience and an ongoing, primary, interest in ethology. I use Tinbergen’s 4 Qs to frame questions about behavior and so have an interest in phylogeny, ontogeny, mechanism/causation and function. I’m also fairly familiar with applied behavior analysis (dog training!). I’m somewhat keeping an eye on ‘addictive technology’ as I believe we’re living through a time of dramatic cultural change driven, in part, by the introduction of the -nearly- ubiquitous internet. It’s my impression that people aren’t always ‘steering their own ships’ and unfortunately moods and behaviors reflect that. Or what I really mean is that I feel sorry for the kids!
Not sure what MRCA is but if I gather, you’re interested in cooperation. I’d probably be more in the Dawkins camp but I heard that E. O. Wilson has -somewhat recently- become more open to group selection (not sure to how many species this extends). I wasn’t convinced by D.S Wilson on the topic many years ago but it’s not a main interest of mine… but I know who Williams, Trivers, Hamilton, and Axelrod are with just a lot of dust on my ‘knowledge’. My mentor has written a paper on eusocality and humans. If I have you right, I’d mention that people from a lab in Austin recently published a challenge to something I wrote ;^0.
Have I fixed these? (updated model in the following post)
I will send you a DM regarding the rest. I don’t think we need to bother these nice folks with nerdery on a very niche topic. In fact, I once threatened to write a book called “Better Sleep Through Evolutionary Biology” in which the first 20 pages were filled with the usual dense ■■■■ from academic papers, then 300 blank pages, and then a literature cited section with everyone ‘famous’ in the field.
With much help, I think I have come close to approaching the final-ish first draft of the foundation and framing for the small library. Below is the model:
Since this seems to be an ongoing thread, I have decided to formally name the library. From hence forth it will be called The Bubba et al. Memorial Weasel Holler Springs Library (AKA The Holler Library).
I think Aaron is looking up at this thinking it’s a little off. You could use the Move Tool. Click on a corner of the component you want to move and then align it with the corner you want to move to.
You can Move multiple components at once. Use Select and then ctrl+ L Click to select multiple components.
Your corner is now nail-able… but your Loft Wall North and Loft Wall West are over-lapping. You can tell if faces are overlapping by the ‘z-fighting’: That flicker you see. Others might do things differently, but I’d consider removing all of the materials. I think this adds to ‘visual noise’ and may be making it harder to see what you are working with. You could try Color by Tag instead. That may help differentiate things for you.
You can ‘click into’ components and ‘cut them off’ by tracing lines around where they meet other geometry. Or, use one line where they meet and then Push-Pull. You’d want to use another component (or rename), or Make Unique first. Otherwise you’ll change all of them.
I don’t have an opinion about the height of that bay window. It does look like the double header is trying to sandwich a piece of sheathing though. Is that stray geometry?
I bred a couple litters of ferrets when I was a kid. My female’s name was, “Cookie”.
I created a bunch of Dynamic Components the last week. For each one I used basically the same rectangular cube. Each one was a copy and paste of the same error (off by 1/16"). It’s a Sorcerer’s Apprentice type situation.
OK, I really did fix that, saved it, and uploaded the file. Then I re-opened the file, and the same error was still there! I did some testing, and I could repeat the problem. So, I fixed it, copied the model to another newly opened window (using a default template). I saved it using a temporary name, closed and reopened the file, and my fixes stuck.
So I trashed the old file, renamed the new file, and all is good.
I have been getting this odd dialog box that says something like “This version of the file has been previously modified by another program. Do you want to replace it. Doing so will lose all changes”. I have just been saying SAVE.
Re-creating the whole model might be a good way to consolidate what you’ve learned so far. You could also start with a new strategy… for example you could work with Scenes as you go (which could help set you up for sending to LayOut for construction docs), or use a ‘2D layer’ to help layout, or maybe make scenes with materials that will be used for renderings and others that are for documents, etc.
Another point on materials is that if they can’t be seen, you don’t need them. This could matter if your computer struggles with displaying your model. You may want materials on the framing members, but finishings will cover them.
Anyway, there’s a lot you could get into and since it seems like you are getting into it: no better time than the present
Keeping some elements seems reasonable. You might try copying and pasting from one SU file to another. It’s a good idea to import (unknown) components into a ‘scratch pad’ SU file before they are brought in too (so you can inspect them). So, you could try a couple things.
You might bring those vented blocks up higher above ground level. Rock, poly, edging around the foundation?
I am working on version 3 of the library. I have kept the foundation (including the placement of the vents for reasons) and the ground floor floor framing. I decided to do a detailed look at the foundation, etc. Below is the skp file. Before I do a bunch of useless stuff in Layout, does this seem reasonable from a Sketchup point of view. Again, no engineer has looked at this, but an engineer will look at it.
Also, I ran CleanUp on it, and all my tags and associated stuff was deleted and I didn’t notice before saving. So this is just the structural elements with no waterproofing, grade, or rock siding. [EDIT: I have added some of the detail I lost]
I looked at it Chip. I saw that in outliner, you have some things called difference with a box to
the left of it. I was once told by DaveR. to explode those. Then make components like (grade and fill) or groups. You have a short block like that, too. That stuff happens when you use native tools to trim, subtract or other solid tools. Otherwise, I did not recognize anything else. Royce.
I wouldn’t put the floor joists into the cinder block wall / foundation. Makes the floor no stronger and the wall weaker.
If you are using the Outliner you might want to use Groups for like-components. For example, a Group, “Foundation-CinderBlocks”, with all of the cinder block components in it. E.g., Cinderblock, Cinderblock Cap. Maybe another Group, “Framing”, with 2x8 Floor Joists and whatever else in it. That could help to keep things organized (vs. tagging). The groups are also collapsible, which makes all of the components easier to deal with.
Keep an eye on Entity Info. Many times -not always- you’d want your components to be Solid Components.
Just to be clear, I am a biologist whose past work involved esoteric questions answered with esoteric means. I have also restore old cars, but this doesn’t apply here.
What would you recommend for the floor joist to foundation connection? I do Google, but I seem to not recognize a solution that makes sense.
I realize my “detail” model has problems. I was thinking of using that particular model for just detail, with the main model having more ‘solid’ geometry. I was planning on having several of these ‘detail’ models that are separate from the main model but show close-up views of the details.
For example, the main model (below) has mostly solid components or groups, but I have left out the foundation waterproofing, vapor barriers and rock siding. I’m thinking of modeling such detail in separate files.
Does any of this make sense?
I am going to proceed with the walls next. If necessary, I can am pretty close to the beginning so I can start over.
Hi Tom, hopefully I’m not sounding too curt with some of the things I’m pointing out. You’re tackling learning modelling, and a build. Your enthusiasm is contagious!
My terminology may be incorrect, but I’d try doing ‘ledger boards’ around the top of the foundation (just labelled “Group”). It may be possible to set (and level) them (green treated lumber) without connections, since they can’t move out due to the cinder block behind them. Or, not sure if you can ‘shoot’ these directly on to the foundation blocks (with something like a ramset gun)… Otherwise it might be possible to use lag bolts or Tapcon screws into the cinder block. Cinder blocks aren’t all that strong and I just don’t know the correct way (to code) to attach to them.
You might be able to look up what fasteners are ‘code’ with the International Residential Code book… or start talking with the building inspector in your area.
I did a quick search for “floor cinder block connections” and found an image that makes sense to me (if attaching to a concrete foundation): [Ledger Board to Concrete - Inspection Gallery - InterNACHI®]
(Ledger Board to Concrete - Inspection Gallery - InterNACHI®).
You could use a number of different models. But you can also use Scenes you create in SU on LayOut pages. Let’s say what you’re showing now is “Full Iso Foundation-Floor Connection”. It is from your Main Model, but tags for everything except what is visible are off. You can manage these detail views with Scenes and have a consolidated, single, Source of Truth. Just use, Send to LayOut, from SU. Once LayOut opens, look on the right and open the SkethcUp Model panel. In the Viewport, select the Scene and Update (if needed).
These could be in the same ‘Main Model’. Group and Component visibility can be used to focus on what you are trying to show. Once a view is set up, you can save it as a scene and open the scene in Layout.
Yes. I think you’re trying to do ‘break outs’ of what you want to show… which is what you should do. You’re just unfamiliar with features of the software and different workflows that can get you where you want to be.
One way to think about Tags, Groups and Components would by ‘phylogenetically’ or categorically. You might have a Group, “Walls”, in which Foundations are grouped. Maybe the components, “Concrete-Poured”, “CindarBlocks”, etc. are in that Group. Then, “Framing”, “Floors”, “Roof” - however you are thinking about them. Then, tags on Groups can be used to turn on/off entire classes (Groups). Whatever fits your way of thinking. Here’s an example of some Grouping that gets your Outliner under control:
