Building a stick frame house in the woods in 90 days

[pclausen]

Day 79

Pics from yesterday.

They got the trench dug for the power

They then had to go backfill at another job, and then they came back

A shot from up the road where an existing transformer is across from. This is where where they will come across to tie in

And they got the hardy plank installed on the upper portion of the garage. They mounted the bases for the lights way high. Will likely need to go with a different design lights here now compared to what I had planned. No a big deal I suppose.

Don't know why they haven't knocked off that one block at the end of the wall already.

This is the style light I had planned:

Hopefully the painters will be back today to caulk up this new work and repaint everything.

The reason the driveway turn-around is going to be on the left, is that the right side of the driveway is the only well exposed area to the sun, so that is where mom will have a large portion of her garden. This is also the area where the greenhouse will go, and the propane tank will be buried.

 

[MacLawn]

Looking good, pc! What a trench just for a wire! I thought they would've used a ditch witch but looks like a backhoe dug that one! No matter, it'll work.

 

[pacerron]

How would you post "viewable - full (screen) size" images" within your posts, Ron? As you can guess, you've lost me a bit (city/country not withstanding ).

Jay,
Now that we have weathered the first heavy storm of the season, more heavy wind than rain, I will explain my thoughts on your question above a little further.

1. An embedded image with TBN as the server is limited to 640 x 480 to protect their bandwidth. That is ok for most snapshot pictures that are posted but to show any detail, such as Peter is trying to do, on a subject as large as a house, it just is not large enough. One of the go arounds is to use another server as the host, as you suggested and do. Peter does the same thing using "CStone.net" and posts at 1280 x 853 px. Since I modified and re-posted his image it is still important to show his original detail plus my additions/modifications. However, since many people are really not interested, I feel it is being more courteous to just post it as an attachment. That way they don't have to let it load again and scroll through it if they are not interested. It also saves a little duplicated bandwidth for TBN. for each viewer. If they are interested they can open it to view in detail or download it to their own computer for viewing or editing.
This is similar to someone posting a "reply with quotes" to a days worth of Peters images without removing the image codes from the top of the reply. Don't you just love scrolling down through a duplicate posting of the days pictures to get to the reply, just to find that all it says is something like, " good job Pete"

2. You suggested and use Photobucket. Photobucket restricts or reduces the images they host to a maximum of 1024 x 682 px. That is a reduction of 40% in area of the image on the screen. You can readily see that by your re-posting of the final house pic I did last evening. Mine was a copy of Peters original 1280 x 853 and your copy of that via Photobucket posted at 1024 x 682 with or without your changing the size when you put it in the bucket.

Just my opinion and reasons for doing it the way I do.:dance1:
Ron

 

[aczlan]

1. An embedded image with TBN as the server is limited to 640 x 480 to protect their bandwidth.

Not so.
Here is a picture that I re-sized to 1024x768 before uploading as an attachment:

Here is the original (at 2048x1216):

If you click on them and look at the picture size, they are still at 1024x768 and 2048x1216

However, since many people are really not interested, I feel it is being more courteous to just post it as an attachment. That way they don't have to let it load again and scroll through it if they are not interested. It also saves a little duplicated bandwidth for TBN. for each viewer. If they are interested they can open it to view in detail or download it to their own computer for viewing or editing.

Theoretically, it should only have to load the picture once per page and your browser should be smart enough to see that it is a duplicate and only download it once. No guarantee on that though.
I very much agree that it is impolite to reply quoting the pictures unless you are commenting on the pictures...

Aaron Z

 

[pacerron]

I agree that bridging would be a good idea; but at this stage of the game, Pete may have to settle for strong-backs if his Mom notices too much bounce in the floors. If he can get in there, than bridging could be made from scabs of waste 2x4's; but I believe metal ones are available that are easier to install and don't require tons of work at the miter saw and off-angle nailing/screwing.

I like TJI engineered joists for a number of reasons; but the thin subfloors (23/32" or less) that are common now still makes for a flexible diaphragm.



I use Google's Picasa Web Albums as they are simple, ad free, and just work.



I think this is a good alternative, especially since I believe Pete has nixed the stone over the top of the garage door.

MJNCAD,
Yes it is probably too late for the X bracing. The metal ones you spoke of have one end nailed to the top edge of the floor joist before the subfloor is
ever put down. They usually hang loose on the bottom until everything is framed up, squared and plumbed. Then the bottom ends are nailed at the bottom of the joist.
Same basic thing for wood X bracing. It would be hard to attach the tops with a nail gun or hammer correctly after the subfloor is down, but it has been done.
Scab bridging as you mentioned could still be easily done in the centers of the 3 joist runs between the beams, but not as effective as X bracing to prevent the yellow pine from roll cupping.

In any case, a subfloor is just a subfloor, and many builders try to use it as the only underlayment for tile since they don't want to deal with the added expense of having "void free" plywood made for tile underlayment and other backing for wood and carpet so everything comes out the same level when done.

Picasa is fine for basic 72 resolution SRGB images and even the free editor works ok for that. When you get into RAW 16 bit conversion and Adobe RGB or other color work spaces that retain more of the spectrum it doesn't work too well. That's an entirely different subject and really not appropriate for TBN discussion unless they have a photography forum too.
Ron

 

[pacerron]

Not so.
Here is a picture that I re-sized to 1024x768 before uploading as an attachment:

Here is the original (at 2048x1216):

If you click on them and look at the picture size, they are still at 1024x768 and 2048x1216

Theoretically, it should only have to load the picture once per page and your browser should be smart enough to see that it is a duplicate and only download it once. No guarantee on that though.
I very much agree that it is impolite to reply quoting the pictures unless you are commenting on the pictures...

Aaron Z

Aaron,
They are the same size, because as you said above, you uploaded them as attachments.
What appears on my browser, Chrome, of your post is two indentically sized thumbnails of your two different sized images. You have to click on them to have them open full size, which is what Jay was complaining about with my attachments. It seems we are wearing out his mouse clicker by using attachments.
Jay was talking about embedding them in the message using another server to get around the embedded 640 x 480 limit that the TBN server has and have them open automatically larger within the message with text explaining them, above or below each picture as Peter does.
I believe the browser will only download the pictures once if there has been no change to the page, like another post added, since the last time you opened the page. It checks to see if there have been changes compared to what it has in temporary storage. If not, then you get an instant opening of the page. I can still see these variations in load time since I have to use a satellite service to view the internet. It sure would be nice to have cable, and a lot cheaper for a lot more speed, and not be affected by the weather for the up and down and then up and down again
to communicate.
I will defer this discussion to the computer gurus on site to argue over since I really don't know.
Ron

 

[J F]

:thumbsup:Ron, nice stuff. Have you considered using a site like photbucket to upload/host your images? Once you upload them to an image hosting site (free), you can then get the "links" to post your stuff as "full size pics" within posts. It's much easier on everyone's eye's/mice, if you haven't tried it.


Photo and image hosting, free photo galleries, photo editing As a software guru, you'll get it pretty much instantaneously.

If you post them all "full size" within your post, none of that is required.

Hope ya know, I'm just having a bit 'o fun with you, (Super) Ron.

Aaron,
You have to click on them to have them open full size, which is what Jay was complaining about with my attachments. It seems we are wearing out his mouse clicker by using attachments.

You drama queen. :laughing:

 

[J F]

Peter (or anyone), is that a "standard" height for garage lights, or did your builder choose the height for the exterior garage lighting?

 

[GolfAddict]

I will defer this discussion to the computer gurus on site to argue over since I really don't know.
Ron

And hopefully in a different thread...

 

[aczlan]

Aaron,
They are the same size, because as you said above, you uploaded them as attachments.
What appears on my browser, Chrome, of your post is two indentically sized thumbnails of your two different sized images. You have to click on them to have them open full size, which is what Jay was complaining about with my attachments. It seems we are wearing out his mouse clicker by using attachments.
Jay was talking about embedding them in the message using another server to get around the embedded 640 x 480 limit that the TBN server has and have them open automatically larger within the message with text explaining them, above or below each picture as Peter does.

You mean like this:

Edit: Interestingly in the preview, the pictures were different sizes, so the code that displays the page is choosing how big the pictures can be. I like that as I hate it when the page is so wide (due to 1-2 pictures) that you have to scroll back and forth to read the text. It appears that this is smart enough that it will automatically scale the picture size to your screen size. As such, if I expand the browser window to take up both monitors, the pictures get bigger until they are full size.

I believe the browser will only download the pictures once if there has been no change to the page, like another post added, since the last time you opened the page. It checks to see if there have been changes compared to what it has in temporary storage. If not, then you get an instant opening of the page. I can still see these variations in load time since I have to use a satellite service to view the internet. It sure would be nice to have cable, and a lot cheaper for a lot more speed, and not be affected by the weather for the up and down and then up and down again
to communicate.

Ah, I was referring to there being (for example) the same picture shown in 5 posts (one post and 4 responses quoting it). Then the picture should only download once despite being shown on the page 5 times.
In your case, I would probably use something like an old computer with pFsense and a caching proxy so that pictures and other such large files would stay cached for a week for anyone who uses the computer. I do that and I am on cable (100 megabits across the network is faster than the cable internet connection for windows updates and such).

Aaron Z