The dsh Terrain Building Test

[gteacher]

Glenn

Your right, Chief does not do cut/fill, or if they do they do it very badly. But obviously, in order to create a level pad, some cut/fill has to be done and I was guessing that the double terrain line looked like some type of cut/fill.

But your explanation is better, what I was looking at was really the end of the level pad area on the back/top side of the building. This would approximate a cut/fill section. Note I did say it was wrong.

Attached is plan. I think we beat this one to death. Real problem and confusion is just that Chief updates intermittently and sometimes bizarrely. I agree now-- somewhat-- with Scott.

[lbuttery]

Gerry:

nice video

It was interesting to see that chief's online manual uses "sill plate" in the calculation - the printed manual doesn't mention it

maybe you can do a video showing the relationship of the
terrain elevation (regions, lines etc) and the pad elevation when auto-calc is on and when it is off

I think this is an area that is causing Scott some confusion...

I hadn't noticed a re-build issue but then I wasn't focused on the pad elevation to the level of detail
that you showed in the video - very informative

Lew

[gteacher]

Lew

I'll try to do another video, maybe after the ball games tonight. Hopeful, it will be a little less winded.

But, I'm thinking now, that maybe people do know ,in general, how to calculate this. Or,if not, there just seeing different results for the same input, do to the update problem. In any event, we, as always, need to double check Chief on occasion and knowing the exact method of these calculations is required.

Your explanations are better than mine, but I'll try to put a visual to it.

We really NEED that "sea Level" bias.

[dshall]

Wow, this has been great and I appreciate the participation. I do not need help in building the model, remember I posted a picture of the model with the first post. I think I can build any terrain with the best of them, I have done so many videos on terrains that I know how to build them, but I do use different nomenclature and methods.

I admit my initial post was not clear enough, I wanted to know at what elevation you would set the TERRAIN PERIMETER/TERRAIN ELEVATION/BUILDING PAD, the answer is 20', thanks Glenn. I also wanted to point out that Doug's AVERAGE ELEVATION input (http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread....799#post423799) was a non starter, thanks Lew.

This post also proved a point that terrain building is confusing, or should I say that many of us can reach the same solution but with different methods or thought processes.

The point of this thread was to get the terrain building process more user friendly.

I think it was Bill Layman who in a prior thread eluded to a missing function, the ability to, with a flip of a button, have the contours either read out as relative to sea level or relative to the house finished floor of 0.0, thanks Bill.

Now I will explain how I work and how most of you probably work, so read the following several times to see if you agree.

When I build a house, typically an as built, I build a terrain perimeter/building pad and set contours relative to the house f.f. of 0.0. Being able to create a BUILDING PAD gives me the ability to put in driveways, sidewalks etc. It is not until later that a topo map is provided, if provided at all.

FOR ME THIS IS THE KEY, AT WHAT POINT IN THE DESIGN PROCESS DO I GET AN ACTUAL TOPO MAP? TYPICALLY AFTER THE PLAN AND BUILDING PAD HAS BEEN BUILT.

If this is the way we work, which initially has all topo info relative to house f.f., and we later get a topo that says everything needs to be adjusted by 20', why can't we have an input that would increase or decrease the TOPO LINE DATA , adjusted by 20'.

There, that is what we need, the ability to have the site elevations relative to the house or relative to sea level with the flip of a button.

[lbuttery]

Scott:

you are correct, just as Glenn pointed out - most chiefers think of the house first
then later want to set the terrain relative to the house

unfortunately, that's not the way chief thinks at this time

you mention setting the pad elevation to 20'
in chief that means 20' above sea level whereas you are probably thinking 20' above "terrain"

consider building a house in Denver the "mile high city"
there is lots of flat land there yet the sea level elevation is 5000'

thus when you enter a value into the "pad elevation" you should be entering 5020'

the up slope contours would then be 5021,5022, etc
the down slope contours would then be 5019,5018 etc

this is important when trying to match a survey's contours

I do think it would be nice if chief would allow us to display the contours in "relative" terms
of the relationship between the house and the terrain

even tho we enter the values in absolute terms in relation to sea level

Lew

[Glenn Woodward]

Scott:

you are correct, just as Glenn pointed out - most chiefers think of the house first
then later want to set the terrain relative to the house

unfortunately, that's not the way chief thinks at this time

you mention setting the pad elevation to 20'
in chief that means 20' above sea level whereas you are probably thinking 20' above "terrain"

consider building a house in Denver the "mile high city"
there is lots of flat land there yet the sea level elevation is 5000'

thus when you enter a value into the "pad elevation" you should be entering 5020'

the up slope contours would then be 5021,5022, etc
the down slope contours would then be 5019,5018 etc

this is important when trying to match a survey's contours

I do think it would be nice if chief would allow us to display the contours in "relative" terms
of the relationship between the house and the terrain

even tho we enter the values in absolute terms in relation to sea level

Lew

Lew,

I would do it exactly as you describe - where is the challenge? Where is the confusion?

Enter topo information directly off the survey based on sea levels.

Enter the Pad Elevation as 5020' - ah, which just happens to be the elevation you want Chiefs zero floor level to be! Which is what I have been saying all along - Pad Elevation should read as "Chiefs Zero Floor Level".

I don't understand why you would want to change levels relative to the building floor level. The surveyor has provided all the topo information relative to sea level - that's what you would use to set the building heights out - that's what floor level should relate to.
Why would you confuse things by trying to convert all the levels relative to floor level being zero - I don't understand why anyone would want to do this!!!

[lbuttery]

Why would you confuse things by trying to convert all the levels relative to floor level being zero - I don't understand why anyone would want to do this!!!

Glenn:

because I might want to know that from the front door to the street the elevation drops 8'

if the contours show as absolute sea level value as 5019 down to 5011
I have to do the math - not hard math but in different scenarios it might be harder

looking at contours that are -1, -2 ... -8 just makes it clearer/quicker

also the absolute sea level elevations don't show the minus sign so it takes
looking at a few contours to confirm that the terrain is sloping down

with relative values that show the minus sign it instantly clear that they slope down

then consider if they start to slope up again - still minus for awhile but the numbers are growing smaller until they go positive

all in all just a clearer/quicker way of viewing the data

yet it would also be displayable in the absolute sea level values - if needed

we should have the choice of which way to view the same data

thanks for confirming that your method works with sea level data as well

I think from now on I will skip the auto-calc method
unless I am required to show the relative changes in elevation

that is until chief adds this improvement

Lew

[perryh]

Scott, yes to your suggestions, and 1 other. The fact you cannot change that 6" that Chief adds to the terrain height should be adjustable by the user and not automatic by Chief.

[dshall]

Scott, yes to your suggestions, and 1 other. The fact you cannot change that 6" that Chief adds to the terrain height should be adjustable by the user and not automatic by Chief.

Perry, you are absolutely correct, 8" is the new code here in the Great State of Fruits and Nuts, and I suppose the user should be able to adjust this. However this auto calculate feature is nonsense to me, I think this may have been designed for the newbie, and I get that, no problem. I never use it and I do not need to, the manual setting works quite well.

[dshall]

Lew, I reviewed your posted plan, and it was wrong. You F.F. elevation was set at 1.8' above grade on the outside, not the 1.0' above grade that I wanted. Here is a link to the video if interested.

http://chieftutor.com/dscotthall/LEW...0CHALLENGE.wmv

[lbuttery]

Scott:

could be it was wrong, I was concerned with matching your contour lines
not the F.F.

I missed that was part of the challenge


the manual setting works quite well

so with a completely flat lot what do you set the "pad elevation" to ???
and what components make up that total value ???

I'll go watch your video

Lew

[lbuttery]

I'm still trying to figure out why so much is being made about such a simple concept which leads me to believe that there is still something I'm missing.


Doug:

it is far from 'SIMPLE" - as evidenced by the confusion of terms and concepts
etc

not sure how to explain the confusion except to ask that you review each of the posts in this thread and take notes of what is confusing to each poster

then perhaps you can explain it to us in simple terms how it currently works ???

I think part of the confusion is switching the conversation back and forth between the auto-calc ON method and the auto-calc OFF method

my understanding is that they are two different methods
but then maybe I am confused

so please explain what chief does with each method

Lew

[Doug Park]

I must admit in reading this I was and am still somewhat unclear as to what the confusion is. Let me see if I understand the confusion.

It appears that the confusion lies mainly in where the offset between the terrain elevation coordinate origin is and where the house coordinate origin is. Is this correct?

It also appears that there may be some confusion with the idea that the terrain and house have independent vertical coordinate systems. Is this correct?

I'm still trying to figure out why so much is being made about such a simple concept which leads me to believe that there is still something I'm missing.

Based on the images that Scott posted it appears that the offset is being calculated as described in the manual, but perhaps I'm missing something there as well.

[perryh]

I think the difference (Lew's drawing) in pad height using auto calculate is raised floor vs. slab, different platform depths.

[dshall]

I think the difference (Lew's drawing) in pad height using auto calculate is raised floor vs. slab, different platform depths.

Maybe, but it is still wrong. I wanted the F.F. 1.0' above terrain. His was 1.8'.