Is there a way to do this is X4?
Thanks,
John
Printable View
Is there a way to do this is X4?
Thanks,
John
John:
supposedly you don't need it anymore
Try turning on the Walls, Thru Wall Lines layer
see the new "frame thru" setting
I'm not sure if this works better or not ???
Lew
Well, it's not working for me. I have an existing solid stone wall with a new wood frame wall and a railing coming in at the corner and it really messes up.
John
In the 'structure' tab in the wall dbx turn on the Thru wall at start' or the 'thru wall at end'
radio boxes.
I don't know which of your walls are at start and end so you will have to play with them.
Try it, it is fun.
Andy.
Training video #1572 should do nicely.
Well, that kind of works. Not very clean, though.
John
It would be useful to send this particular example into our support team so that we can look at whether there are things that we need to do to make this case work better.
Thick walls are somewhat problematic in general with Chief and examples of their use are somewhat rare in comparison to more traditional walls so we appreciate any examples of real world usage.
Thanks for pointing this out. Had no idea why some walls weren't snapping together like they used to..meaning that there is an unwanted line when two walls intersect.
Not sure why this feature was added. But obviously there is a framing related reason behind it.
The layer set options allows you to turn the intersecting line layer off. But sometimes the extra step of checking the "thru wall at start or thru wall at end" is necessary to merge everything together (as in past versions.)
Still haven't decided if it's really fun yet. :)
The wall butts other wall was really useful in renos . It worked really well, why did we lose it for something that may or may not work. The new system is not logical and it is really time consuming.
IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT !!
For the first week or so I thought it was a bug. I think Graeme is correct in now the walls require unnecessary adjusting to get them to snap into position.
I like the program too much to complain about it. But the way intersecting walls automatically merged in past versions was better in my opinion.
AFAIK, it was done in order to allow you to change the corner framing detail. But I don't know who asked for it or who decided it was something to spend programming time on.
Doug,
Regarding thick walls, there are often times with stem walls that I found the "wall butts other walls" tool to be helpful. Usually a CMU wall jointing a footing or having a turn in the slab on the corner that is less than the width of the stem wall. I think for foundations (since they are still technically wall systems) this tool would be better to bring back if possible.
The attached shows a situation where a CMU stem wall is joining a concrete footing at the backside of the wall, where it should be stopping at the intersection of the short CMU wall that turns to the right. If I checked the old tool it would stop where I want it to. The new tool does nothing for it.
In my never to be humble opinion, I like this method better than the old "wall butts wall" method.
The old was just a pain in the wall butts.
Andy.
Wall butts wall was extremely useful in renovations to stop one wall type's fill pattern from bleeding into another. I'm not sure why it was removed but I would like t see it returned, if for that use alone.
I see a lot of messy wall joints in X4, especially with 3 or 4 way joints. There's often a tiny bit of wall at the end. Deleting that bit helps, but other times the graphics are just unacceptable.
I've sent many examples in. I would urge you to send examples in so we can get this fixed.
I agree with most sentiments. I used to butt a wall in a house every three or four houses to clean up a corner. Now it seems I "run a wall through" on every plan to clean up some messiness it's created. I do however appreciate how I don't have to clean up this joint anymore! In X3 it was always an eye sore for me when the foundation runs through and the upper walls flip sides on an 8 inch foundation. The function needs some tweaking, not removing.