Terrain help

[louis]

Just so you know Larry I teach people in Canada where there is all kinds of terrain.

...and I have done lots with real elevation data.

..and this is the way Rob Fisher of Canada teaches it and Dan Bauman in Minnesota teaches it this is the way Steve Blake of Maine teaches it and .....

Larry I work with terrain more often than you might imagine.

...and what I'm talking about here is teaching new users of chief how to work with chiefs terrain tools and I believe that this is the easiest way to learn and then you can switch off to Larry's method if you like.

[Glenn Woodward]

Louis,

I'm with Larry on this one.
I set the main floor level at zero, enter the contours at their correct height above sea level (or assumed datum - this information ususlly comes directly off the surveyors plan), and then raise or lower the floor level with the building pad elevation setting.

Otherwise you have to convert all your elevation data to reference the floor level which just becomes a giant mess because you have 2 values for each contour - your converted value and the original value you worked from (usually the surveyors plan) - it doesn't make sense and can easily lead to errors and confusion.

Just because you and others do it differently, doesn't mean it is the best way. :-)

[louis]

Okay Glen and Larry,

Yours is the best way!!!

[Larry Kumpost]

Just so you know Larry I teach people in Canada where there is all kinds of terrain.

...and I have done lots with real elevation data.

..and this is the way Rob Fischer of Canada teaches it and Dan Bauman in Minnesota teaches it this is the way Steve Blake of Maine teaches it and .....

Larry I work with terrain more often than you might imagine.

And that is going to change my mind because....?????

Frankly I was just trying to qualify my previous post a little and was surprised you seem to take offense. Listing people that do it your way has not changed my mind.... or "my reality" at all.

At least I explained why it is easier for me to do it the way I described. Can you tell me why you think it is easier to work from 0 with negative numbers?

[George Godwin]

Much easier to relate to actual grade somehow.

That is how I do it here in the lakes district. I take a low elevation from the Topo on the lot and call that zero. I know what the road or sidewalk level is from the engineering topo data and then I set the building pad to allow an acceptable driveway grade from the garage slab level. All the elevations are precisely related to each other in inches (conversion from metric surveys up here). I have done this for walkout homes such as the case in this thread. Louis' way will work as well and I would use it where the reference is an existing house and elevation and you are laying out landscaping from that reference. For new homes, picking a Topo Survey reference as a zero point works like a charm.

[Curtis Johnson]

I think we should bury this part of the discussion - we all have ways we like to do things; if they get the job done that is what counts. What is nice about CA is that there is often many ways to do something and each of us will use whatever way seems the most appropriate to us at the time we are using a certain method. I think the important thing is that as we get more proficient with the program, we will probably make some changes in how we do things, to help us work more efficiently. If we provide our customers with the best plans we can produce, plans that will hopefully sail through the permitting process with flying colors, that is the bottom line.

[louis]

I think we should bury this part of the discussion

I'm with you Curt!

[Larry Kumpost]

That's funny. Isn't that close to what I said in my post

I should clarify my previous post.

Each person has a different reality based on the type of work they do and even the area they work in. Using 0 and negative numbers may work fine for Louis (I know he is in Texas and assume he is probably working with relatively flat sites most of the time).

And in response I got a list of people from Louis that do it his way as if that will change what works best for me.

I do agree that I will not debate the issue further but will only answer if someone has a question.

[George Godwin]

There is an important distinction to be made here that is worth understanding.

I do not hesitate to say that both approaches work fine and there is no dispute in general terms.

However, I would use the zero building pad method for an existing building and then setting the landscaping in negative numbers from the zero building pad level. For new houses, I would work from an existing topo reference.

This is important to understand. For example, when I am working on one of my waterfront lots and I need to know whether or not I have a viable walkout home situation, I take a low point reference near by the rear footprint of the proposed home. Then, in conjunction with the elevation of the road and a proposed garage slab elevation that would allow an acceptable driveway grade, I can then set a viable building pad relative to my known zero reference elevation at the back of the house. Only then can I determine if I have a walkout condition with my 3D model home. This approach works from a combination of an existing topo reference on the unfinished lot and the reference of the known finished road elevation. This is the logical and only way that I would handle this situation.

As I said in a past thread on this subject, the 3D terrain tools allowed me to gain 10 waterfront home walkout lots over what the 2D engineers had come up with in their 2D analysis. The difference illustrated the value of the 3D terrains to me in vivid colour (green).

[ChiefCanada.com]

Each person has a different reality based on the type of work they do and even the area they work in.

Exactly. I think what Louis is getting at is that for a simple city lot with only a front, mid and rear elevation given then is very easy to leave pad elevation at zero thus making terrain zero and floor one zero the same point. We can then use existing building references (like basement floor @ -110") to quickly set grades and show an accurate terrain representation.

[George Godwin]

Rob, - You are correct. Larry and I are referring to working with more complex lots and elevations. While I can't speak for Larry, I work with new lots and new houses and, in addition, I work in limestone and shale. The latter also require working from an actual topo reference and the road elevation reference for excavation reasons. For example, if I have a lot with minimal overburden and rock near the surface and I know that a big excavator can only dig and break it up down to say 4-6 feet for a basement, then I am into a raised main floor situation and a split entry design. I need to work from real elevation topo data as the reference point for my building pad to have a successful result. 3D is a great aid for terrains and adding the 3D model to it. I am very glad that I do not have to work this out in 2D.

[ChiefCanada.com]

Thanks George. You and Larry are also correct. I would certainly do it your way if I were doing a large project with lots of topo info. BTW Louis you mispelled my name.

[louis]

Sorry Rob, it is corrected.

[Allen42acj]

Louis
Can you post an example of your method on a small test plan?
I am a little confused about both the floor and terrain at 0..
Are you using an elevation box to lower it at the house?
Not up on my terrain terms...

[louis]

Allen,

If you need a test plan I can post one.

Place your floor at 0, place your building pad at 0, make sure auto calculate elevation is un-checked. Enter your terrain info. example -6, -8, -25 and so on. All terrain data you enter is relative to 0. Positive is above 0 and negative is below.