Floor plan ideas for a modern single-family house of approximately 150m², without a basement

I once asked the OP there where his wall thickness came from (his program draws including plaster surcharge),

Your wall thicknesses are so irrelevant in amateur designs, as they are not built accordingly anyway. Only after implementation by a professional can something be said, and even then it depends on the drafting planner for which executing construction company he is drawing. In that sense: just consider the drawing as a sketch. The layman just likes program sketches

Your wall thicknesses don't matter at all in amateur drafts,

That's not the point here. I mentioned it in the hope of helping someone remember which thread I might have meant – I couldn't find it through search, although the latest post is still fairly recent (originally from last year, if I recall correctly). If I had found it, I would have linked it here so the OP could compare their draft with its twin. Incidentally, wall thicknesses are only "irrelevant" as long as they are general (e.g., 40 cm); specific, concrete wall thicknesses (e.g., 29 cm or 33.5 cm), on the other hand, are an indication that someone has a particular wall structure/material in mind. I wouldn’t bother making such inquiries just for fun or pedantry.

Thank you for your objections regarding the wall thicknesses. In our initial house-building considerations, we were more inclined towards a timber frame variant. The construction company we might potentially work with plans with 36 exterior walls and 11 interior walls. Therefore, I simply based the planning on these two values. However, since we are now also considering solid construction, this could of course still change. I am planning the 3-D sketches just for better spatial visualization. As an absolute layman, this is necessary for me. Of course, it would be nice if someone could remember the "Zwillingsplan". I would very much like to read through this thread. Thank you

That is not what this is about.

You mention the aforementioned in almost every amateur draft.

Thank you for your objections regarding the wall thicknesses.

At least on my part, it was recently only about the hope that a reader would remember this situation and could give a helpful hint as to where the thread in question can be found.

You mention the aforementioned in almost every amateur draft

No. If it says 40 cm, I do not question it, and I even advise, already in the sketch stage, to generally plan 40 cm exterior walls and every interior wall initially as load-bearing until proven otherwise, because it is easier to make them slimmer than thicker. Even if the drawing clearly shows double-shell exterior walls, this usually becomes apparent to me on its own. Only if the original poster specifies a concrete "odd" but not market-standard wall thickness in Germany do I ask. Occasionally, the market in Austria and Switzerland offers different stone formats, or a special building material (formwork stones, etc.) is behind it. And I like to point out early on when one can already sense "cowboy pockets" in the plan.

Of course, it would be nice if someone could remember the "twin plan." I would very much like to read through that thread. Thanks

I will gladly keep searching, but the search function and my screenshot archive didn’t help me for over an hour yesterday, even with Google support including reverse image search. However, I am sure it was here and not in the green forum.

I only plan the 3-D sketches for better spatial imagination. For me as an absolute layman, it is necessary.

Unfortunately, it often only looks as if it improves the three-dimensional imagination – especially with head heights under stairs and roof slopes, it does not reliably prevent a plan from proving to be an homage to M. C. Escher. And you often see your house from impossible perspectives, e.g., as if the house opposite had been demolished and you were standing with the house behind on the garage. This effect constantly leads to the fact that uncertainty about a pleasantly proportioned roof pitch cannot be clarified in this way. Textures in "affordable 3D" are also only simulable very inaccurately.

I am happy to keep searching, but the search function and my screenshot archive did not help me for over an hour yesterday, even with the support of Google including reverse image search. However, I am sure it was here and not in the green forum.

There was a discussion recently where the OP took his pictures down again because he wasn't well received. Maybe that was him?