The dsh Terrain Building Test

[gteacher]

LEW - I agree

We're not talking about big changes, just a few "common sense" ones.

[lbuttery]

Gerry:

I'm thinking a graphic showing the relationships between terrain and F.F. and Pad elevation etc along with the values being used might be helpful

same as is being used in the room dbx now

a "story pole" concept

Lew

[Gary Doski]

Gerry,
If I understand you correctly, your saying Chief bias is to f.f. But Chief working from 0.0 is not f.f. it is the top of the sub-floor. The f.f. would be whatever element we add to that (usually 3/4" wood for example).

When Chief added the Terrain Region tool, they could have taken the line/spline & point tools out and I would have never missed them. They are IMO a huge waste of time. I have not used them in years.

I also never use "automatic". I uncheck automatic and set the TP to "0" and then use the regions to manipulate the terrain to what is needed. I think the automatic feature is there for the most common simple application, not multiple buildings, etc.

As far as the terms used by Chief, they may not be ideal at times, but they are good enough to understand what is meant. I may not like some of them, but I still know what they are. I don't see a need to change them at all.

Can the terrain tool be made better, of course it can, and someday maybe we will have cuts/fills, etc., but right now I would prefer they focus on clearing up the issues we have with the model directly.

As Doug says, it is simple and easy to use.

[lbuttery]

As Doug says, it is simple and easy to use.

Gary:

not to belabor the point but I think this multi-page, multi-opinion thread
would indicate that it is not "simple"

Lew

[Bradley Boltz]

And at the end of this long and interesting thread, I still don't know how to properly or accurately use contours and house elevations. Probably because of a minor dislexia but using a positive number, 12" to indicate that the "building pad" is 12" below the 0'-0"(relative first floor hgt which is now finish floor hgt or rough floor hgt?) always seems wrong to my brain. Then it goes downhill from there.

Will have to read that chapter in Terry Munsen's new book and get back to you. Sorry Doug, but as intuitive as many functions in Chief are, the lack of a real "sill plate" for foundations and the way the contours etc work are far from intuitive and this last monster thread from some relatively intelligent and tech savey Chief users is evidence enough.-Brad

[gteacher]

LEW -- GREAT IDEA

It would also be nice if an optional bias field would be shown and set there. Also this needs to be moved to the the floor DBX so that it can be set for each building f.f.


GARY

1. I meant bottom of f.f. , top of floor structure -- thought that was apparent - my fault - after my lecture on defining terms.

2. I use the points almost always. Just starting another job in Ohio where I have some radical site survey data. This is why regions are not always usable. Developments here always start with a shot point data survey -- everything is on a hill. "The ROLLING" hills of W. VA.?

3. Auto only works for one building, never for more

4.I agree with LEW -- 9 pages of comments isn't simple. Minor changes and common sense would have staved a lot of peoples time.

Hope this makes sense.

[Gary Doski]

As Doug says, it is simple and easy to use.

Gary:

not to belabor the point but I think this multi-page, multi-opinion thread
would indicate that it is not "simple"

Lew

Your right Lew, it is clear that many people are unclear as how the terrain works. My method (I think I taught you) is very simple and gets results fast? It may not be "perfect" for everybody's needs, but this was added to Chief just so the model would look nicer and has grown from there. Now, of course we want it to do more and more. I'm all for that.

It is very simple, once you uncheck automatic. I think guys maybe trying to get automatic to do more than it was meant for.

[Gary Doski]

This is why regions are not always usable. Developments here always start with a shot point data survey -- everything is on a hill. "The ROLLING" hills of W. VA.?

Yah, hills, New England is exactly flat either. I can't even remember doing a flat lot.
I would be surprised if you could not do the same with the region tool. Send me the survey and I'll show you.

[Doug Park]

There are two and only two coordinate systems involved.

1) The house. This is relative to the sub floor or slab depending. It is in not intended to be related to sea level, although you could do this if you wanted. I've never seen anyone do this. It is the same for all buildings so if you need to adjust an out building up or down you will need to adjust it's floor level. I could see a feature where each building has it's own "Pad Elevation" but for connected structures you will need to adjust the floor level so the value would very limited.

2) The terrain. This can be relative to anything that you want. A survey point, sea level, etc. Relative to sea level is common. Relative to a survey point is common. Relative to the house zero is common. All options are easy to accomplish but will require different techniques to accomplish.

Relative to a survey and relative to sea level. Input your elevation data from the surveyor. Adjust the "Pad Elevation" so that the house floats at the right level.

Relative to the house zero. Set your "Pad Elevation" to zero. Adjust your terrain elevations to suit.

The second method is harder and more work because your survey data will need to be modified to be relative to the sub floor or slab elevation. A feature to allow you to display elevations relative to the sub floor or slab would make this easier to deal with.

It is up to you which method you choose.

I can understand not intuitively understanding whether to move the elevation up or down, I have the same problem. Still it isn't hard. Worst case I go the wrong way and have to adjust it the other direction.

[Joe Carrick]

1) The house. This is relative to the sub floor or slab depending. It is in not intended to be related to sea level, although you could do this if you wanted. I've never seen anyone do this.

Doug,

I did this only once - with version 10 - and have never tried it again. It caused a big problem with perspective views being extremely small, requiring me to "zoom to window". I think it was because of the distance of the house from the z coordinate of zero.

I was never able to verify that this was in fact the problem but when I modified the plan so that the 1st floor was at z=0 I got reasonable sized perspectives without having to zoom in.

[ambrozac]

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

A little late to the party, but here is mine.

[rgfeher]

Doug,
Thanks, It has always been my understanding, logically, everything builds in CA relative to a baseline. So, what to chose for that baseline? The one thing all structures have in common, regardless of design, is a first floor somewhere. I think that makes the most sense for a baseline. Knowing that, I'm fairly confident in the positiion of everything +/_ that baseline. As you mentioned, worse case is entering the incorrect direction, but hardly an issue.

So, I must have completely missed the point of this post, but I wanted to thank you for confirming my thoughts on the issue of where the placement of everything in elevation stems from.

[gteacher]

BTW: 20' for f.f. is wrong since that puts f.f. at grade. Should be 20'8" for monoslab. (4" for slab + 4" stone fill) -- Just Nit Picking to aggravate my "virtual web" friend -- I play golf very badly and calif is too far for a match.

Attached is latest plan. How do I get the primary contours to read both local elev. and sea level using regions? Back of lot can not graded, too many trees.Keep in mind, I never do this. I just add a note of sea level to the local maker ref and everything is acceptable -- But what if?

[ambrozac]

.....Should be 20'8" for monoslab......

I added an 8" base pad around the structure, then raised the slab top 12" above the pad, to get 20'-8". My measurements are to the top of the slab and not finished floor. Did I give the wrong answer to Scott?

[dshall]

I added an 8" base pad around the structure, then raised the slab top 12" above the pad, to get 20'-8". My measurements are to the top of the slab and not finished floor. Did I give the wrong answer to Scott?

Yep..... Wrong, but who cares, who will win the super bowl, I predict the giants but I have been wrong with all year long so bet on the pats