The dsh Terrain Building Test

[lbuttery]

Scott:

how do I get the contour #'s large enough to read so I can post a pic ???

my contours match yours exactly



I have also attached the challenge plan with the foundation built

I never noticed that when using auto-calc that chief displays/updates the
"Pad elevation"

Thus, I have attached pics showing the "pad elevation" without a foundation as I posted in my first plan earlier today

and a pic of the "pad elevation" with a foundation as in this latest plan

time to head to the funeral (friend's cousin)

Lew

[dshall]

Scott:

how do I get the contour #'s large enough to read so I can post a pic ???

my contours match yours exactly



I have also attached the challenge plan with the foundation built

I never noticed that when using auto-calc that chief displays/updates the
"Pad elevation"

Thus, I have attached pics showing the "pad elevation" without a foundation as I posted in my first plan earlier today

and a pic of the "pad elevation" with a foundation as in this latest plan

time to head to the funeral (friend's cousin)

Lew

Text size controlled via layers.

[perryh]

I tried to use your numbers not Lew's

[gteacher]

Since no one is going to bother to read this post anyway, I can say what I want.

LET me attempt to clear up some of Scott's confusion and some others.

There is NO such thing in chief as TP (Terrain Perimeter) elevation. So there is nothing to set. All references are (fixed) to 0 -- assumed to be sea level. It CANNOT be changed. This has been explained before and generally does not cause a problem except to surveyors and builders who usually reference to a local marker. if you have no terrain , terrain level is assumed to be zero, if you have a terrain, it's whatever the elevation data says it is (default 0) , always in relation to 0 (sea level ).

Pad elevation is related to wherever the center point bottom foundation level is to its location on the terrain surface. And is given in relation to 0 - sea level - explained before.

Contour elevations are +- to sea level 0.

Everything is Okey-Dokey unless you get surveyor's data referenced to a local Surveyor's marker level, thus the confusion between sea level and elevation data. You CAN NOT bias the 0 point (sea level).

[lbuttery]

Gerry:

I agree....

I may not be saying it correctly but I agree with your info

Lew

[dshall]

Since no one is going to bother to read this post anyway, I can say what I want.

LET me attempt to clear up some of Scott's confusion and some others.

There is NO such thing in chief as TP (Terrain Perimeter) elevation. So there is nothing to set. All references are (fixed) to 0 -- assumed to be sea level. It CANNOT be changed. This has been explained before and generally does not cause a problem except to surveyors and builders who usually reference to a local marker. if you have no terrain , terrain level is assumed to be zero, if you have a terrain, it's whatever the elevation data says it is (default 0) , always in relation to 0 (sea level ).

Pad elevation is related to wherever the center point bottom foundation level is to its location on the terrain surface. And is given in relation to 0 - sea level - explained before.

Contour elevations are +- to sea level 0.

Everything is Okey-Dokey unless you get surveyor's data referenced to a local Surveyor's marker level, thus the confusion between sea level and elevation data. You CAN NOT bias the 0 point (sea level).

My confusion or yours or simply semantics. I can change the terrain perimeter all day long. Open DBx and change. I can put terrain above house or below, keep in mind that my one stry house elevation is staying at 0.0.

[gteacher]

. I can put terrain above house or below, keep in mind that my one stry house elevation is staying at 0.0.

Always (only) in relation to 0 (sea level).

So if know how to set elevation data in relation to sea level and the pad elevation. What's the problem?. You can only put the terrain above the foundation, if you turn off auto-calculate. It all works just fine.

[Glenn Woodward]

Since no one is going to bother to read this post anyway, I can say what I want.

LET me attempt to clear up some of Scott's confusion and some others.

There is NO such thing in chief as TP (Terrain Perimeter) elevation. So there is nothing to set. All references are (fixed) to 0 -- assumed to be sea level. It CANNOT be changed. This has been explained before and generally does not cause a problem except to surveyors and builders who usually reference to a local marker. if you have no terrain , terrain level is assumed to be zero, if you have a terrain, it's whatever the elevation data says it is (default 0) , always in relation to 0 (sea level ).

Pad elevation is related to wherever the center point bottom foundation level is to its location on the terrain surface. And is given in relation to 0 - sea level - explained before.

Contour elevations are +- to sea level 0.

Everything is Okey-Dokey unless you get surveyor's data referenced to a local Surveyor's marker level, thus the confusion between sea level and elevation data. You CAN NOT bias the 0 point (sea level).

Gerry,

I agree with the thrust of what you say - there is no such thing as Terrain Perimeter Elevation.

But, I'm not sure that we are talking semantics here, but I see things a bit differently.
I think of all levels set in relation to chiefs zero floor level - nothing to do with "sea level" - does a negative elevation mean the building is below sea level? - not very realistic.

I can have relative levels (relative to Chiefs zero floor level) by specifying minus levels for below Chiefs zero floor level and positive levels for above Chiefs zero floor level.

I can have absoulte levels by specifying a Pad Elevation at an actual elevation and then terrain levels at actual elevations (but, everything still remains relative!).

If there is any confusion, have a look at the 3 plans I attached in a previous post - no mention of sea level, not a wave in sight (or should that be site).

Oh, one other thing, when you say: "if you have no terrain , terrain level is assumed to be zero, if you have a terrain, it's whatever the elevation data says it is (default 0) , always in relation to 0 (sea level ).

Once again, what has it got to do with sea level?
In these situations isn't terrain level whatever the formula is (eg: -6" - floor thickness below Chiefs zero), and not zero.

I think we are agreeing but just seeing things from a different frame of reference or relativity.

The main point being that I have no confusion about terrain levels and things all work great as they are!

[lbuttery]

think of all levels set in relation to chiefs zero floor level - nothing to do with "sea level" - does a negative elevation mean the building is below sea level? - not very realistic


Glenn:

chief's manual discusses sea level

in the real world all absolute terrain data is based on sea level


by default chief works with relative height values for the terrain elevations (set via elevation data such as regions)

then it auto-calcs the "pad elevation"

when auto-calc is off and a "pad elevation" is entered that value is an absolute value per sea

with auto calc on the house "rides" the terrain like a BOAT
the house elevations are relative within the BOAT, yet the boat is at an ABSOLUTE value in relation to the elevation data
and the "pad elevation" per sea level

with auto calc off the connection between the house and terrain is broken
after that each MUST be set separately

if the elevation data (such as regions) is changed and the "pad elevation" is left at zero the house remains at sea level

with auto calc off and adding no elevation data (such as regions) the TP will remain at its default of 0" sea level
change the "pad elevation" to 50' and the house will be in the air at 50' above sea level


read the sea level references in the manual


Lew

[lbuttery]

Glenn:

I have attached the manual's references to sea level


Lew

[perryh]

Yes, t.p. can be changed very easily. The contour lines stay the same though.

[Glenn Woodward]

This is a three part test. You are to recreate the model pictured below

Part 1: Build a 20X30 house.... easy peasy
Part 2: Determine the ELEVATION OF THE TERRAIN PERIMETER
you can use Doug Park average ht. method (this comes from this thread http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread....799#post423799)



Part 3: Build the terrain as pictured below. Note the terrain contour callouts are automatic, that is part of the test.

I am curious as to what everybody set there TERRAIN ELEVATION at.

D. Scott,

I have been away for a couple of days and come back to this very interesting conversation.

Can you explain what you mean in the above by
ELEVATION OF THE TERRAIN PERIMETER - is there such a thing?
and TERRAIN ELEVATION - is there such a thing? Do you mean Pad Elevation?

In your example I would set the Pad Elevation to 20' (relative floor level) - is that what you want to know?
What are you trying to achieve?

Haven't we been through this before?

I think a lot of confusion arises because when you have a Terrain Perimeter with contours and you uncheck Auto Calculate Elevation.
Under these circumstances Pad Elevation is the elevation you are setting for Chief's zero floor level to - it has nothing to do with setting terrain building pads or elevation regions under the house - or nothing else to do with shaping or modifying the levels of the terrain.
It simply relates zero floor level to the terrain levels.

[gteacher]

Maybe to help, I made a video which visually demos how chief calculates the pad elevation. Glenn's plans are more detailed but sometimes a visual helps to understand.

The video is a little long winded, because I'm just slow, but I think it covers most bases. I did discover a update problem which was giving strange results. This may be some of Scott's problem.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/30269729/Pad%20elevation.mp4

MP4 file

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/30269729/Pad%20Elevations.wmv

WMV file

In any event, when Chief does update properly, the calculations appear consistent and correct. Problem is not in cals, problem is in correct updates.

[Glenn Woodward]

Lew,

Thanks for the lesson, and I do like your anology with the boat.
But you missed the meaning of my post - I was trying to get people to look at how things work from a different perspective in the hope it may make this whole thing easier to understand - apparently not!

Gerry,
In your video when you are looking at the section about at 12:37:08, you talk about Chief showing the cut and fill.
As far as I know, Chief doesn't do this.
Are you sure that what you are seeing isn't the terrain in elevation?

Can you post that plan so that I can have a look?

[lbuttery]

But you missed the meaning of my post - I was trying to get people to look at how things work from a different perspective in the hope it may make this whole thing easier to understand - apparently not!

Glenn:

for most chiefers the primary focus is on the house and while using auto-calc the terrain is their secondary focus

thus, they drop in a little elevation data (regions, lines) to get the 3D to look ok and
are not concerned with real world sea level values etc

for them your thought process would make the most sense

all values are RELATIVE to the default of 0" sea level


but in reality chief's primary focus is on the terrain and its relation to sea level and then the
seondary focus is on how the house elevation is calculated from those sea level values

since this is the way chief approaches it I think its good for chiefers to understand that
chief uses 0" sea level for the auto-calc


because once auto-calc is off it is a whole new ballgame....

at that point chief uses ABSOLUTE sea level values for the terrain elevation data (regions, lines)
and for the pad elevation and BOTH MUST be entered


so I think the switch in thought process fom RELATIVE to ABOSLUTE
can cause confusion for some chiefers

thus, I like to think in terms of ABSOLUTE at all times with the understanding that
while auto-calc is on chief is displaying the data as RELATIVE values

when auto-calc is off then chief works in ABSOLUTE and displays in ABSOLUTE



Lew