rickwookie

Installed a 5G router for a customer last week, since he insisted it's all he would need (getting internet service into the property was becoming boring). We had warned him that it would be anyone's guess if it would work or not, and what speed he would get. Sure enough, position the router in one spot (where it couldn't stay), got 220 Mbps download, then 25 Mbps, then 58 Mbps, moved it about 30 cm, got 0.4 Mbps. There are just too many variables with wireless. Now we'll have to find a spot that has reasonably consistent speeds, and then wire that point back to his network switch to distribute the the various WiFi access points around the property.

UK “average” homeowner is probably the same then tbh. I’m always amazed how many people glue a Ring to their front door and have to regularly take out the battery to charge it (I actually thought this was I joke when I first saw this is how they work!) when for similar money they could have a hard-wired equivalent. One of the biggest things I’ve noticed since lockdown though is that people are really starting to take notice of their networking and WiFi (or lack of it). I think is should be a requirement of Building Regs now days that any new builds should have a minimum amount of structured cabling installed. We acknowledge that we need powerwall of a building, so we should also acknowledge that we need data everywhere too. Trouble is, everyone thinks you can do everything “wirelessly”, until they try to. My rule is this: if a device never moves, wire it!

That's what I did, and got that same effect.

I am getting precisely this effect when trying to add a rope light to a trey ceiling. I've upped the max number of lights from the previous default (I think it was set to 20), but it's still looking like this. Is it not possible to use the rope light to effectively simulate LED strip (tape)?

Count me in George! Hey TKA. If you want an AV and Home Control/Automation specialist, that just so happens to live in St Albans, for any of your future builds. I'm your man. Either way, let me wish you an advanced welcome to town!

Impressive as that is (and I mean it, it's great!), none of the moldings you have there appear to be off-axis, so they would be reasonably easy to break and edit using a parallel section views (although it's annoying that you would even have to do this and not just be able to break them in plan view!). If for example your stairs were flared (got wider) at the foot, then suddenly you'd find it near impossible to insert a break in those rails on that stair section.

Trenchless moled Polyduct doesn't have too many elbows tbh.

Underground pipes in terrain.

I've tried variations of this, whereby I "temporarily" set a segment I need to break to have zero Z value in plan view, insert the break, then try to "put the segment back" but of course there is then a problem - it's now two segments! So now I can't just re-inset the two Z values at each end, because I have to use ball-ache maths to calculate the Z value of the new intermediate point. This isn't the worst part, since that point will be getting moved anyway (the entire reason I would need to put a break there), but what is a problem is that when you put the other two ends back "where they were", Chief seems to have a mind of its own as to what then happens to the two segments that branch off of those two ends, i.e. they don't orientate themselves back where they were before!

You'll now find that in plan view you can' no longer insert a break on the segment that raised (or lowered) from zero height.

And since you can't rotate a section view once placed (another bug?) or from what I can see, place it with a specified numerical angle, trying to have it lined-up with the line section, when that section is off-angle, is nigh-on impossible!

Is that one continuous line?

It only works until you have any depth (relative to that view) applied. Try it. Draw a Polyline in plan, convert to 3D Molding Polyline - you can insert as many breaks as you like - now select section of the 3d Molding Polyline and set its Z coordinate to something non-zero (maybe try setting a different Z value at each end to have it sloping up or down for extra "fun") - now try inserting a break...

I've tried using long cylinders, and while their behaviour is more consistent, getting their ends to be in exactly the right place is also difficult because they don't have end edit handles, so you need to do some tricky maths to work out the "rotation" of the cylinder in 3-axes. Coupled with the fact that you don't appear to be able to set the rotation values as absolute values (only + and - delta steps from an unknown reference!), it's a bit of a nightmare. I suppose what I really what to know is: Is not being able to add a break in the 3D Molding Polyline a bug, and if so, will it ever get fixed? If it's not a bug, what's the logic behind it?

Why is it so difficult, and in many circumstances impossible, to insert a break in a 3D Molding Polyline? Surely this is a longstanding bug. Often the only way I can do it is to convert back to a standard polyline, but then of course I loose all data in the 3rd dimension, effectively flattening my line. If I add enough breaks, I can then convert it back to a 3D Molding Polyline and then move all the points again, although this is very tricky too, but then if I find I'm just one edit handle short and need another break - boom, I'm back to square one! Is there an alternative workaround to enable the routing of pipes and ducts through 3D terrain, where for example the depth (Z axis in plan view) has to change over the length to create a fall/run, but BOTH X and Y also vary, to avoid terrain obstacles?