Thank you for the info.

Version 0.9.0 - 09.08.2024

Created the Medeek Floor Plugin, utilizing SketchUp's Ruby API.
Added the draw floor tool with the ability to create I-Joist and solid sawn (lumber) polygon shaped floors.
The Floor extension can be downloaded directly here:

http://design.medeek.com/calculator/sketchup/medeek_floor_ext.rbz

Note that this is a BETA release and does not include all of the future planned functionality (ie. openings, beams etc...) I am only posting this release in a few select locations to allow power users to test it out first and help me further debug and refine it. After approximately a week I will send out a notification to all users letting them know that the release is now publicly available. Hopefully in that time I can catch the most glaring bugs and issues so that my inbox does not become swamped.

Also all those who have been issued licenses in the last year or so will have their expiration update date of their license automatically renewed so that it will be active for one year starting from tomorrow's date (09/09/2024 - 09/09/2025).

QuoteI guess I assumed that if the design met code, and an engineer's approval, it had to be sufficient. 

That is the intent. Pier type foundations do not meet code without an engineer's approval and most of what you see done along those lines by DIY'ers they would not be able to approve.

QuoteI see some houses in the area with a hybrid foundation. Part perimeter, and part post. 

I've built one that way and it has held up fine. It is tucked down in a very protected location. They wanted to build under radar on piers, uh yeah, that wasn't happening. This was as far as I could get them at that time. The handyman bench, bee suit, bikes, solar inverter, etc ended up in that "basement" bracing room. He is now putting in a full perimeter foundation the hard way. One engineer noted that it is frustrating to see people's light flicker on too late time and again.  Let's go back to the assumption you would like to make... Code requires a full perimeter foundation, or, another way to think about it is that bracing walls above (generally the exterior walls), need to sit over and be tied to bracing walls below. There are cantilever tables that will buy you a foot or two. Going to a hybrid is an engineered design.

QuoteIn a stepped foundation, what is the basement/crawlspace floor? Just the natural surface?

If the soil is dry and not shifting I believe code is silent on basement or crawlspace floors if the foundation is masonry or concrete. Clean subsoil is common for the floor, remove the topsoil and all organic material to avoid attracting termites and ants. Sand is more comfortable if the soil is knobby. Then cover the soil with at least 6mil plastic to control moisture above. Study this chapter, if it is in red that is changes for my state only;
CHAPTER 4 FOUNDATIONS - 2021 VIRGINIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (iccsafe.org)

Also check the section around 403.1.7.1 on foundations near slopes.

In the Materials tab of the Global Settings you can switch between the more realistic textures/materials for lumber and pressure treated lumber:

I am open to considering a perimeter foundation. The stepped footings is an interesting idea. 

It makes sense what you say about a perimeter foundation supporting the house more evenly, and I like the redundancy. 

I see some houses in the area with a hybrid foundation. Part perimeter, and part post. 

I guess I assumed that if the design met code, and an engineer's approval, it had to be sufficient. But if it may be cheaper to do a masonry foundation and save engineering expense, and get the bonus of some basement space, why not?

In a stepped foundation, what is the basement/crawlspace floor? Just the natural surface?

I've used 3 layers of foil faced polyiso, continuous(no breaks) on a roof assembly. I've done two 2" layers of unfaced closed cell XPS between studs cut ~1/2" undersized and shot in with great stuff. Actually I've done that on a couple of old houses, they are 5-7 years out with no reports of trouble. If it is white beadboard, EPS, I would be hesitant as it can hold water.

If vapor passes through an assembly in winter and hits the cold outer sheathing it will condense. If the sun drives vapor inward through the assembly in summer and you air condition the wall cooling the drywall surface below dew point, then again vapor will condense. The question is, how much, how much hygric capacity do the materials have, and how fast can they dry. There is the art and risk as local conditions, modes of HVAC, methods and materials are constantly changing. Think it through as clearly as possible and roll the dice. Totally OT aside, I'm trying to figure out how and where to bury some sensors in the current old building rehab. Things will change as I improve the fire rating and energy efficiency but it might not be for the better. In my case when we insulate the masonry walls I need to know that the wood beams and rafters that are inserted into pockets in the walls are still staying dry and that condensation is not happening on them or in those pockets that were heat leaks but free to dry. 

Someone is selling rigid insulation panels that are enclosed in foil for a very good price.  They are 1.5" R13.  Wonder if there would be any issues with condensation or moisture if you were to use two panels together in a 2x4 wall.  Tried searching the web for info but finding varied opinions.  Any info appreciated.

How soon should I release the BETA version?  I'm currently checking the floor preset functionality and I will also look at the addition of insulation (bat or fill) tomorrow.  The gypsum (ceiling) seems to be working great, but eventually I will add in battens because I know someone will request it, but it is not top priority right now.

I'm thinking I will push out the opening and beam modules after I release the BETA, they will complicate things and may take a few weeks of tweaking and testing before they are ready for prime time.  The opening module will be the higher priority of the two.

I've created the template for the integration with the estimating module, but this will also require further fleshing out.  In addition there will need to be updates to the cost database and weight database modules that integrate materials for the floor assemblies.

I'm honestly not sure how useful the connection function is as compared to the Truss plugin, but it will be a feature since most of the heavy lifting is already done.

The CUSTOM and SUBTRACT feature will be similar to the Truss plugin, it is in place and appears to be working as it should, further testing would be prudent.

The I-Joist libraries (sizes and types) is much more organized than the previous system and should be easier to maintain and if required more manufacturers can be easily added.  I may also add in a "custom I-Joist" option which would allow one to specify the full set of dimensions for a custom sized I-Joist (depth, flange depth, flange width, web width, web material etc...)

Similar to the Truss and Wall plugins, one can specify a comma deliminated remove list to remove specific joists from an assembly. 

Still lots to do but it is almost close enough to the finish line to think about putting it out there and start garnering feedback and suggestions.

I've been pushing the plugin all afternoon trying to find ways to break it and a few things eventually did jump out at me. One of which is the rim board algorithm and the sill plate algorithm (essentially the same algorithm but utilized differently). Other than that the basic joist (framing) algorithm seems very robust at this point no matter what strange configurations I try to attack it with:



My initial framing method for the rim joists was to simply bevel/miter the joints, which makes sense if things are non-orthogonal but in practice when things are orthogonal the joints are usually lapped, at least that is what I've always seen in the field. If they are lapped then the question becomes do you lap the long or short parallel to the joists themselves. What I've always seen is the long rim joists are perpendicular to the joists however the user may want some control over this, so it is probably best to make this user definable (yet another option).

I will put my thinking cap on and start a new day tomorrow...