Material definition issue between vector/standard view

[BFog]

Hi There,

I did a search and didn't come up with any results. I have changed the material (exterior sidewall) on a house I'm working on, changed the sidewall exposure from 8" to 6". Why is it I can only get the correct adjusted view in vector? The standard view only gives me the default view (8"). I was able to change the material color successfully that appears correct in both views.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

-Bob

[kenoeightspot]

Change the pattern(vector) under the "General" tab.

[BFog]

That's what I thought I had Now this looks right in vector, but I can't get that look in standard (which is what I'm looking for).

[kenoeightspot]

Ht. is wrong, should be 6"

[BFog]

I wish that was it

The overall shingle is set at 12" with a overlap of 6, giving a result of a 6" exposure. I even tried it with just a 6" (instead of 12") and 0" overlap, witch still gives me the same result in vector, but not in standard. I either messed something during the layout or I'm just missing something really easy. Thx!

[kenoeightspot]

Your pattern is correct with the overlap, check your texture tab. Count the number of siding pcs. x 6" then adjust the X/Y to that number.

[Kilgore Trout]

Patterns are shown in vector views. Textures are shown in standard/render views. You have to adjust both settings to get the two views to match.

[BFog]

That's the ticket!

I couldn't figure out the exact formula to it, but tweak by tweak I was able to arrive at the desired result

Thanks for hanging in there with me!!!

[kenoeightspot]

You should not have to tweak it. Look at the "Texture" tab photo, it shows 6 rows of siding x 6" =36" not 40.5". Look at your image in post#3 there are 24.5 rows but in image, post #8 there are only 21.5 rows.
Change the texture to 36" to align them.

[BFog]

Gotcha. What I did to get it field accurate was to count courses on pictures I took. Now the actual sidewall courses might be 5.5 or 6.5" idk (probably should've checked while field measuring, lol). I'm just about sure the elevations are 100% on, so that works for me. But I totally get your calcs. on the solution though, will keep that in mind moving forward.

Thanks again!