The dsh Terrain Building Test

[dshall]

Thanks guys, you just proved my point, we are confused, no one has posted a picture that duplicates my plan and nobody has told me at what elevation they set their terrain perimeter at..... two very easy requests....... yet no one has done it...... we will wait for CA's answers if they choose to take the challenge.

Presently I can do what ever I want, my issue is the fact that the process could be improved, and the fact that Doug is talking about "average terrain height", leads me to believe CA does not understand how we create the terrains..... and I am curious as to how the "certified users" and the "CA Trainers" handle this.

[dshall]

follow-up to post #12

that plan and pic are with "flatten pad" on while using auto-calc

I have attached another pic and plan showing the same plan with "flatten pad" off

this illustrates that chief keeps the footprint of the house "flat"
even while the terrain is allowed to "slope"

thus, by default chief keeps the house "flat" at all times
using the "center point" (average ?) of the terrain under the house footprint

Lew

I am not at my office Lew, so I cannot review your plan. My question is at what elevation did you set your perimeter.

[gteacher]

Using Lews plan and calculating the Pad elevation graphically, I get a pad elevation of 545.5" vs Chief's 539.5" about 6" off. Close enough for government work. I still say Chief is doing it per their specs. -- straight forward.

[lbuttery]

nobody has told me at what elevation they set their terrain perimeter at.....

Scott:

the TP elevation can't be changed

it has a default of 0" at all times


elevation data has to be applied to set terrain elevations


my first two plans posted do recreate your challenge

I didn't bother to post pics of them as I assumed you would open my plans

I still think you don't understand where/why the "average" is applied

Lew

[dshall]

nobody has told me at what elevation they set their terrain perimeter at.....

Scott:

the TP elevation can't be changed

it has a default of 0" at all times


elevation data has to be applied to set terrain elevations


my first two plans posted do recreate your challenge

I didn't bother to post pics of them as I assumed you would open my plans

I still think you don't understand where/why the "average" is applied

Lew

You air wrong, the TP elevation can be changed. You are correct, I do not understand TP average elevation and I do not think you do either. You did not use average if you used the default zero elevation.

[lbuttery]

Scott:

no it can't

the House "pad elevation" can be changed on the TP dbx
but this has NO effect on the terrain elevation

Lew

[dshall]

Using Lews plan and calculating the Pad elevation graphically, I get a pad elevation of 545.5" vs Chief's 539.5" about 6" off. Close enough for government work. I still say Chief is doing it per their specs. -- straight forward.

I must be an idiot. 6" off is off, period. So Gerry, where are you setting your average pad elevation. Gerry can you post a plan depicting what I dd? Gerry can I see your plan specing out the contour elevations?

This is not rocket science, I would like to know what the TP elevation is according to Doug's method. I would also like to see someone post a plan similar to mine. Why do I keep getting this gobbledy gook from you guys. I am trying to make a point here and nobody is playing along.

Again my request is quite simple, let me know what your TP elevation is. (average elevation per Doug's method), and post a picture with the contours called out as I did in the very first post.

[dshall]

Scott:

no it can't

the House "pad elevation" can be changed on the TP dbx
but this has NO effect on the terrain elevation

Lew

Lew, I have not seen a picture from you with contour lines spec'd out like my first post, if you can't do that I do not know why I am talking to you. And now you are telling me that the TP is zero and cannot be changed..... So what is Doug talking about when he refers to the "average" legation. Come on guys, let's begin to communicate here.

[gteacher]

Scott

Correction -- Somewhat!!

Lew's plan was without a foundation and Pad Elevation was at 539.5, once you add a foundation, pad elevation jumps to 547. Without a foundation, Terrain under the building is set at the bottom of the floor joists. With a foundation, it is set at 6" below the top of foundation. I'm thinking that without a foundation, chief only adds the floor joist height (12), and forgets about the extra 6" which would account for my error of 6".

If you like, I'll post a video of how I looked at this graphically.
The terrain perimeter height is set at the lowest elevation data. in this case 240" Everything starts form there.
I don't think the contour lines show correctly - But I don't understand what they are try to say??

Right now, I have to shovel snow!!

[dshall]

Scott

Correction -- Somewhat!!

Lew's plan was without a foundation and Pad Elevation was at 539.5, once you add a foundation, pad elevation jumps to 547. Without a foundation, Terrain under the building is set at the bottom of the floor joists. With a foundation, it is set at 6" below the top of foundation. I'm thinking that without a foundation, chief only adds the floor joist height (12), and forgets about the extra 6" which would account for my error of 6".

If you like, I'll post a video of how I looked at this graphically.
The terrain perimeter height is set at the lowest elevation data. in this case 240" Everything starts form there.
I don't think the contour lines show correctly - But I don't understand what they are try to say??

Right now, I have to shovel snow!!

But Gerry, I can show the contour elevations correctly. That is part of the point of this thread. I can show contour elevations correctly, but I am not sure anybody else can including Doug. I am trying to point out how inane the current method is, I am trying to point out how most users do not understand this, I am trying to point out that this needs to be improved.

Gerry, I am not confused, I understand this, I can do what I want. It is you and others who do not fully understand this, the evidence being that you concede the contours are not called out correctly.

I am on your side and the other users side, I am trying to improve this program by conveying to Doug the problem with the current set up.

I wish you guys would go back to the very first thread and take the challenge. If you and others would take the challenge you may understand what I m trying to convey.

[dshall]

And in another thread Doug is boasting about how flexible this is in that we can use real world elevations or elevations relative to the first floor. Have you seen an example of this, I have not. You are talking about the topo being off "only 6" and the fact that the topo lines do not show correctly which i think is unaccetable and I don't know what the heck Lew is talking about.

Just another contentious thread, ain't life grand.

My prediction is SF and Baltimore in the Super Bowl.

[gteacher]

Scott

My focus was on yours and Lews discussion of determining the pad elevation , which I think is consistent within a couple of inches accuracy and makes sense. I don't think the pad elevation is iff 6" per my correction.

As to the contours, it looks like two different people programed that and they weren't talking to each other because apparently different criteria was used as a starting reference point. Chief could easily figure out this discrepancy if they wanted. The inconsistency is obvious.

Another example of a excellent feature which no one looks at because its confusing and too limited.

[lbuttery]

Scott:

I'll wait until you can download my plan's

AND you can post yours

we are just dancing around in circles here


you are misinterpreting Doug's statement about "average"

Lew

[dshall]

Scott

My focus was on yours and Lews discussion of determining the pad elevation , which I think is consistent within a couple of inches accuracy and makes sense. I don't think the pad elevation is iff 6" per my correction.

As to the contours, it looks like two different people programed that and they weren't talking to each other because apparently different criteria was used as a starting reference point. Chief could easily figure out this discrepancy if they wanted. The inconsistency is obvious.

Another example of a excellent feature which no one looks at because its confusing and too limited.

Who cares about Lew's and my discussion. I feel in this particular situation Lew does not know what he is talking about (let's cut to the chase).

I do not want to get off track so I go back to post #1. Nobody has taken the challenge, and maybe you are correct, the programmer's at CA were not communicating, I don't care, I just want CA to acknowledge the issue.

Instead, Doug responds in a different thread, and he refers to the absolute elevations and the relative to floor elevations. But no examples, pie in the sky stuff that no one understands. He has not responded to my quest to determine "the average elevation" for my sample plan, is it that difficult to figure "average elevation" from the plan I provided? Or maybe this average elevation stuff is nonsense.

It's just very frustrating trying to share ideas with people and we can't get in sync to come to a consensus, probably my problem.

[lbuttery]

Without a foundation, Terrain under the building is set at the bottom of the floor joists. With a foundation, it is set at 6" below the top of foundation. I'm thinking that without a foundation, chief only adds the floor joist height (12), and forgets about the extra 6" which would account for my error of 6".



Gerry:

thanks for the clarificiation

I didn't bother with a foundation - had others things to do at the time
but Scott demanded a reply and now he can't even review my plans

I'll wait until he can as I am headed out for a funeral and won't be back till this eve

Scott:

my contours show exactly like yours do....

Lew