Floor plan single-family house 1 full floor technology and daylight

Exactly, stated in #90 first point: "OG layout should remain as in the original post," so see #1. Improvement especially desired on the ground floor.

This is basically a bad idea. You always have to develop both floors, as they are connected to each other, for example via the stairs.

Why can't walls actually be built in the attic in #76?

The question is whether there would be enough space for a door. These are always sketches anyway. We don’t know the exact dimensions of your material, heights, slopes, or other specifications 100%. That’s why we sometimes use common average values. You can see the 2m line. Such a door has a frame, and you also want to be able to open it. At least 90cm of width should be available. So the question is whether you can place a 2m high door centrally without having to cut off the frame. For that reason among others, I wanted to see the 2m line drawn in the peak. But your planner, in my opinion, deliberately leaves it out to avoid opening this can of worms.

Exactly, stated in #90 first point:
"OG layout should remain as in the original post," so see #1. Improvement desired especially in the ground floor.

That is basically a bad idea. You always have to develop both floors, as they are connected, for example via the stairs.

Oh dear. If only the ground floor was supposed to be improved, why did he then significantly alter the upper floor? – that makes little sense. Besides, Release "Post #27" seemed to me decidedly more successful than Release "Post #1."

Yes, at least with regard to the stairs, "Before" and "After" must be identical in order to be able to change even just one floor. In "The upper floor takes priority" (external, but also here in most posts on this search term) I explain which floor is the "master" in planning terms and why. Part of my alarm bells regarding the planner's competence already went off with the many non-load-bearing masonry walls of the upper floor (actually: attic floor here); see also "Lightweight walls in solid houses?" (and the sister post "Plan change: from concrete to a wooden ceiling").

Among other reasons, I wanted to see the 2m line marked at the tip. But in my opinion, your planner deliberately leaves it out to avoid opening this can of worms.

Understood, thank you. He marked it but only in the section and then no horizontal measurements.

Clarification question: in #76 there are 2x the attic, do both really belong to it? One has the staircase somehow different, how am I supposed to read that now? And if the dimensions of the house have remained the same, how can the attic suddenly be deeper? In #86 it says "same staircase position," but the staircase is on the other side of the hallway each time, or am I seeing that wrong?

Question for clarification: in #76 there are 2 attics, do both really belong? One has the staircase somehow different, how am I supposed to read that?

Here are 2 different floor plan variants shown. There is a text in between. That should be recognizable.

And if the dimensions of the house stayed the same, how can the attic suddenly be deeper?

For the second one I assumed a knee wall of 1.20m. At that time I did not yet realize that you "need" a 34 cm ceiling and a 36 cm floor slab. So unfortunately that will probably not work.

In #86 it says "same staircase position", but the staircase is on the other side in the hallway each time, or am I wrong?

The stairs are all on top of each other, otherwise you wouldn't even get upstairs. The wall is on the left of the staircase on the ground floor and on the right in the upper floor.

ah thanks, I found my vision error. No, of course, now it is clear that the stairs are on top of each other. Doesn’t it also mean, based on the dimensions in the section, that with today’s house size it’s not possible to build a properly developed attic with doors, walls, etc.? And that we have to fix that first anyway (which you have probably been saying the whole time, but it hasn’t fully sunk in yet)?