Printable View
:confused: Here is something that confuses me. Attached are pictures denoting something I can not understand. When I break an exterior wall and make it invisible that portion of the building no longer is shown as intersecting the ground and the elevation of the building relative raises. Please see attached pictures and the one in my second post.
I had to post this picture separately.
Well it seems obvious no one has an idea why this happens as there have been no reply's not even from Chief. I assume this is either a bug or one of Chief's quirks.
Poelcat:
today is a holiday, maybe some responses tomorrow ???
Lew
Lew,
40 people looked at this post. Maybe they where lookie loos and not users but Chief was on line when I posted it!
Poelcat:
That is an interesting discovery. I don't believe I have seen that before but I seldom have reason to make exterior walls invisible, other than perhaps for porches (porticos). May I ask why you made the wall invisible and what you are trying to accomplish?
Curtis I am putting a log truss and posts there with doors that Chief does not have. See the attached picture.
Polecat,
Is it possible to put in a doorway opening and then install the nano wall doors?
I haven't seen this before either so this is just an idea to try.
Have a great week,Ken
Kenneth that would work if there where no log truss. I have tried what you said with some success but you need to turn off automatic attic walls plus make the door way higher than the wall. I have not checked what this will do to the framing yet. Thanks for the input.
The progression of loss of foundation walls that you are illustrating is confusing to me. Did you put breaks in the foundation walls too or are they just dissappearing? Looks like the grade is changing the same dimension as the floor assembly thickness.
Another reason for Chief to allow us to fix a floor level and wall height and leave it alone.
When you designated the invisible wall, did you keep it as "defines room" (ie deselect "no room designation" in dbx)?-Brad
Just build the foundation before you change to invisible walls.
Bradley I did nothing to the foundation and the room still has its designation. All I did was change that portion of the wall to invisible. I thought it was important to advise everyone of this. I would consider this a bug.
Rod I did that but as you can see from my pictures once the wall becomes invisible the height of the floor relative to the ground changes, everything moves up.
Mr P-Cat,
#1)I've never had that happen, can you post the plan? When you made the wall invisible, it looks like the grade level was pushed down exactly the dimension of your exposed 1st floor structure's thickness. Don't know why though.
#2)If it is a bug, have you sent your plan to tech support?
Bradley, no I have not sent it to tech yet. I was hoping someone here could explain what was going on first. here is a simple example. go to a 3d view and change the whit wall to invisible and watch what happens.
Uncheck auto calculate elevation in your terrain perimeter.
Dan I just did that and the same thing happens!
Chief trys to be smart about the building cuting through terrain. Certain wall types like railings etc. won't cut a hole. This allows you to build a deck with out taking out the terrain below it while still taking out the terrain for the structure.
The reason the height changes is that the area that cuts the hole is used to auto calculate the terrain.
As near as I can tell it's working as designed.
Thanks Dan, I still don't understand the logic completely. I would think that the room definition would control such things not the wall types.
That's a good point. It does seem logical that room def should control the hole in the terrain.
One other note here is that you can always create a terrain hole from a polyline, if needed, and uncheck the option in terrain to hide terrain intersected by building. Then you have ultimate control.
Well Mr "P-Cat",Quote:
Originally Posted by poelcat
I tried what you said and got mixed results. Changing to "invisible" replicates your issue and shows terrain(grass) under the structure. Changing the wall to "invisible beam" maintains the blank (hole) in the terrain beneath the structure. I think that Ron's may be correct by saying you need to create a "foundation" level in order for the terrain to behave properly but I didn't try that out yet.
When I changed the wall to "invisible" and "no room definition", I got the same results as when I just changed them to "invisible", eg no hole, just terrain continuous under the structure (except under the separate room).
I also noticed that your 1st floor level is set at 25 9/16" (for what it's worth). Looks like you could get what you want by just using the " invisible beam" designation since "beams" still don't show as beams in 3d (I hope they eventually will, X3? definable real 3d beams?).
Just added/created a foundation, then changed wall to "invisible" and this is the resulting image. If I change from "invisible" to "invisible beam" then there's a hole in the terrain. On the positive side, using the "invisible" tool allows for a raised pier look. Don't understand why the "invisible" designation causes the terrain to think that the room has no definition.-BB
-Brad
wow thats an interesting problem, i agree it has to be a bug. having to play with the terrain settings seems a weird way of fixing the problem when the terrain is supposed to be generated by the terrain tools themselves (eg countour lines and platforms).
anyway, i have another question for you, i love the design, but why the massive concrete edge beams? its a beautiful timber structure. your eyes room over it and suddenly all this blasted concrete underneath. i understand that putting it up off the ground, on piers or the like, might not be in your interest but i hate mixing the concrete and timber exteriors in this way. (excuse my bias, i am a design and technology teacher by degree...and obviously....i love the natural timber look). in anycase it's your fault im complaining, you entranced me with the lovely interior structure!
Adam,
if you're looking at my example, I used that type of foundation just to check P-Cats's foundation issue. There is no design intent in any of my comments or regarding the illustrated issue. I just wanted to see how the terrain and foundation were interacting in the different scenarios.-BB