yusuf-333

6 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

You're welcome. 

 

BTW, here's a followup to Yusef's video with a couple added tips to help speed things up a bit...

 

Thanks again Yusef.  I really appreciate what you bring to the table here.   

Thanks Michael for the clarification and speeding up the process.

Very helpful as always.

Yes! Chief givis you the center of the tan tan circle automatic. The only difference  is AutoCAD does the circle for you, while in chief you have to draw the wide circle manually based on the auto center it gives you. The concept is there(shown in video above) and the same, but Hey that is AutoCAD and it is primarily for Cad works, Machine drawings etc...

Here is a crappy video. Hope sound is is OK this time, though English isn't my default language... 

Any way, I hope that helps.

Yes sir, chief has make "arc tangent" tool once you "lock centers" of the two arcs drawn over the two circles you want to locate their tangent arc. 3 clicks only!! May be I have to make a video, though I am sure you understood the point I am trying to make..

22 minutes ago, ladycoralie said:

Hmmm. I got a real weird message. Tried to give you reputation and Chief said I couldn't??? Anyway, I hereby rep you, country.

Hope you don't mind. I just put those thumps up on behalf of you..

Michael

Very nice work, thanks for sharing.

On Friday, September 01, 2017 at 0:47 AM, Alaskan_Son said:

 

You're welcome Ross.  I wouldn't say I'm being totally selfless though.  As silly as it sounds, I know there's part of me that does it for the recognition (and maybe the reputation points) and I'm really being dead serious. 

 

I wish sometimes that more people would (like I know you do) realize the amount of time and effort that some of us put into this stuff.  99% of the users here give us no thanks, no points, no thumbs up, no reciprocal help, no nothing...and just in case any of you are wondering, we're not on Chief's payroll either (at least I'm not).  You guys can really thank the other 1% of the users here that offer any kind of support.  If it weren't for them I may not being helping out here at all. I honestly get a little frustrated at times with the lack of appreciation that the user base in general here seems to display.  I don't know how some of the guys here have stuck around as long as they have.  I mean Scott probably has 10,000 videos and and several million views and I doubt he's seen more than some stinky fish.  I can't help but think we've lost the help of several of the most talented Chief users over the years due to the lack of appreciation and support. 

 

I just feel sometimes that there are a very small handful of users...Scott, Glenn, Joe, Yusef, Perry, Mark McAnnif, Curt, Chopsticks : ), Eric (Solver)...just to name a few...who are really offering the bulk of value...and the rest are just along for the free ride.  I can't help but think sometimes that everyone has the impression we're all getting reimbursed for our time and efforts somehow.  I can tell you from personal experience though that we're probably not.

 

Anyway, sorry for the rant.  I would just implore everyone to try and offer a little more support however they can...not just for me but for all the other guys who have increased your knowledge, wisdom, and productivity.  Whether it be a heartfelt thank you, clicking on the little UP arrow (or the little thumbs up), financial support, or whatever.  Just remember that sometimes the smallest tips can sometimes increase your value and productivity substantially.  That's extra money in your pocket, or extra time to do what you love.  Wouldn't hurt to return the favor sometimes.   

Michael

Well said brother. Thanks for being so much honest and helpful person to all in theIs forum.

You are the greatest.

An other silly question, did you check it (light dbx) to show for both render and raytrace views?

On 8/28/2017 at 9:47 AM, Chopsaw said:

Here are the results of our collaboration so far.  

Still a little shy of perfect but some good progress in the right direction.

Suggestions, Comments, Questions, are all welcome.

Many thanks to Yusuf my technical adviser.

 

Great work Chop.

That looks very nice, please explain how that works in chief, were you able to join all roofs without file getting too large?

I don't do cabinets most often, but I have just given it a try. Just walls, doors, countertops etc.... And that looks like it. Right? May be a material regions could also add some effects. Just a thought.

Picture.

Well thanks chopsaw.

This is the most challenging type of roof plane in chief, that I ever seen. Of course I knew that biaxially bent roofs was impossible to go with chief. 

But gave it a hard try and achieved a result that is one step down to what the OP asked.

Attached is a picture showing the results. This is one of the toughest ones to try in chief. I have been working with the Chopsaw(one of the best power users), I was just curious why chief was going so slow when I try to join those roof planes, so I tricked chief by manually dragging the roofs so close to each other and actually look like they are joined. I have done it by making use of base line angles as the pitch of the roof planes, pitch = 0 while the Curved roof angles has helped to bend the roof. Chopster confirmed me that, he also has the slowness behavior his side when roofs join to form actual ridges. The file had bloated to 757MB after chopsaw has joined those roof planes. Chopsaw will be better in explaing the details of what we have found and post the test plans of the technique I used to get that look in chief. 

6 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

As always you are very welcome. 

 

P.S.  I just realized that your signature says X3-X8.  You're not still using X8 are you?  I assume you're not and that your signature just needs to be updated.

Yup Michael, X9 yes.

Thanks for the remainder, but you must update your's too. you are running thousand miles ahead of X9.

X 10.. right?

Nice work again.

Thanks for sharing.

Chop

I don't clearly get your point about the occurance of bad things

Any way don't forget to check the native railings of the ramp to be off.

I am assuming that you already defined the deck using invisible railing. 

Then follow this simple steps.

1- align your ramp around the periphery of your deck. To easily get it done, you can break a ramp in to a number of connected segments bydrawing one straight ramp and converting it to curve, again revert it back to "n" number of straight segments as usual, so you are able to hold the vertexes of the ramp and drag to snap  with corners  of the deck.

2- once you have successfully done step #1, then put a railing wall that is checked with no room definition and  "folowi stairs" check box in dbx marked

3- for accurately positioning the railing(guess you are having problems here) wall with out interfering with the deck sides, though not sure. Simply copy the ramp to the upper floor once you set its height manually. 

4- draw your railings on the same floor that you have copied your ramp to. I think this way you have no limits.This way I am sure you can draw precisely where you want it to be!

Hope that helps solve the bad things you said to happen.let me know if this doesn't answer your question.

Here is an other technique of doing this side mounted deck railings. The method applies the same way as erric explained about the use of invisible walls to define the deck, but no need to mess with an other room definition as it may cause complications you mentioned. Rather simply put a ramp(0 slope) around your deck and lower its elevation after you place it in plan view. So there are two alternative railing applications here. Ether use the railings of the ramp it self(since ramp with 0 pith is already placed around your deck perimeter) or simply make the native ramp railings off in ramp dbx and use an other railing wall that is set to follow the ramp. The later method allows you to easily control the level of the railing in relation to Z axis and further more it allows you to automatically interact with stairs by auto creation of the doorway as usual.

Here is the topic that contains the test plan and a video.

https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/topic/5306-deck-railing-post-fascia-mount-tip/#comment-46137

To cross check the situation Johnny was encountering, I my self seen  very small gap arround attic walls. So I am going to agree that there is diffinitly a gap created due to program miscalculating  length of the attic wall. I do not commonly see this type of connection messes, but at least this situation can not be associated with user error. Again I am sure that most of connection problems are happen due to user errors.

The roof configuration posted by Johny and similar one shown in my video clearly proves that, connection problems can occure. I could be missing some thing and would be glad if some one else could help or tell me that it is fixed in x9

Sorry about sound clarity.

3 hours ago, MarkMc said:

Question- what are you using for ceiling texture?

The other question is that Chief places a light source at the ceiling that I can't access and often creates a glow in the middle of the ceiling. How can that be gotten rid of?

While raytracing goes on, manipulate the intensity versus contrast in image properties. Mostly I<=50 & 50<C<100, so they usually give a value of 100. Like if I=30 the contrast will be nearly a value of 70 to get rid of that glowing center effect.

21 minutes ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

Rene - Some excellent points that one needs to seriously consider concerning rendering and whether or not to pursue Ray Trace or move to another rendering engine such as Thea. I completely agree that CA should really take a hard look this and improve it's rendering capabilities and ease of use to provide more consistent results. When it comes to the Ray Trace engine I see two core issues, one is definitely the default light settings, maybe I'm missing something but they do not seem to be conducive to getting something half decent right out of the box. The other one is the quality of the 3 models, they seem to be improving but so many of them are too basic which obviously undermines realism.

 

What is significant in all of this is deciding on what level of realism does one need. From a personal perspective I obviously want the best however, from a business perspective it's more complicated, do my clients expect or need this and is the time or effort worth it, which of course will vary for every user. For myself, the answer to this is no. They need a reasonable 3D visualization but it does not need to be ready for the cover of Architectural Digest. As I do not make money as a direct result of rendering it is important to minimize the time spent on this. On a typical kitchen project I would normally render 4-5 scenes and over the course of design there could be as many as 10 iterations, this equates to potentially having to render between 40 - 50 scenes, If each scene were to take an hour then 1 week of time would be consumed just to render. As this is totally unacceptable my focus has been to get this time down to the minimum. I believe that through my postings I have been able to demonstrate that is very achievable using the Ray Trace engine given that one is willing to take the time to better understand and work within this engines strengths and weaknesses.

 

Even if CA is not willing to expend the effort to revamp the Ray Trace engine, I really think they do a disservice by the way they have things setup. If I was evaluating CA through the sample gallery plans and attempted to render something I would not be impressed at all by the time and the quality achieved for that time. If I have to wait 2 or 3 hours then the output better blow me away. If that is not achievable then it needs to render something of reasonable quality really fast. In the rendering game it's one or the other there just no place in the middle. We all know that the Ray Trace engine as it exist is unlikely to ever produce the quality of say Thea, but I have clearly demonstrated that it can produce some reasonable(subjective) scenes very fast. Why CA does not focus on this is beyond my comprehension.

 

Some minor adjustments to make my scene closer to yours. Obviously there will be some differences as this is a night scene, just forgot to turn off the direct sun.

Graham 

Very nice!! Your in depth knowledge to raytracing is much appreciated.

Thanks for sharing, very helpful.

Who said this forum members will help you how to ask questions and seek help. You can't learn Chief architect, if you are not wise enough to understand the intent of the four replies above. 

What is wrong with some one, if he tells you that your question isn't clear. Just make it clear and all will be good for you. 

I am assuming that your condition is good and you don't need any doctors consultation.

Don't get me wrong, but this could be the only thing you need right now.

Sarcasm..

On 6/14/2017 at 4:59 AM, Michael_Gia said:

Material regions are good at corners so long as you set the depth that they cut into the same thickness as the outer layer of the wall they are drawn on. 

 

(just a tip)

Great, thanks for the pointer. I will look at it.

1 hour ago, 2wheeltodd said:

I have total control with Material Regions.

Nice work! 

45 minutes ago, johnny said:

 

Yeah, but I am finding even with it off it still doesn't operate without outside influences.

 

Here is a work in progress plan and I am trying to shape the wall (see pic) and its not reshaping without quirky things happening.  I do get this often.

 

 

Thompson Residence2.plan

"Roof cuts wall at bottom" in wall dbx roof panel.

25 minutes ago, DavidJames said:

Rough test w/ PL solids: 

Very nice David. That looks more realistic.

24 minutes ago, DavidJames said:

 

Very true. 

Also, when it comes time to applying color, I'm thinking having separate panels would look a lot better as each will have it's own gradient/shading etc. 

Of course yes, in your method you get nearly perfect results except the time and effort it takes to model. I adjusted texture and applied as any material using mat painter. This saves time and allows more flexibility to use later since any readjustment is done in dbx, but it depends on the level of detail you need.

Thanks

Material regions are not good at corners, applying cladding material directly on wall would give that look in IMO.

2 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

Tons of ways to do this type of thing.  Here are a just a few that come to mind...

 

Great video Michael.

Spcially I like the option that makes use of the "cad to wall" tool. You have explored an other speedy workflow. 

Thanks for sharing