WendyatArtform

On 6/9/2015 at 7:54 AM, brushpark said:

Yes, I believe the z-fighting was the issue. Thanks for the link, I made my terrain smaller and deleted a copied building that I moved to the side.

All good now!

Thanks

You should be able to have a couple of buildings on a site without this issue.  Even though it solved it for you for now, do check how far you are from X=0 and Y=0 (as Michael said).  This is the #1 reason for Z fighting.  We regularly do 50 lot subdivisions without this issue.

You end up 8 gazillion miles from 0,0 if you import from a surveyor and use that as your start.  If you've already done CD's, moving your building won't make sense.  But if you haven't, if you use Edit Area, All Floors you can move your house to a reasonable distance from 0,0 - and then you should be able to do everything you want without this issue.

If you're not super far from 0,0 and still have this, contact tech support.  We saw a guy with issues at the User Group, and it was his video card.  You absolutely should be able to have a subdivision size terrain and other houses.

Oops - just realized advise way way way way late.  Searched "roof" to see what I could answer, didn't read dates!  ;-)

My first thought is,   no CA did not change it....  but now I am not so sure as I think about it a bit more........  I will have to retract my earlier statement that I have never run this situation......  I have.  I have seen that the ceiling height will be higher than the floor ceiling height and I could swear that I did not change the ceiling height.

 

The way I have fixed this in the past is by creating the attic as I showed in the video.

 

Summation:  The OP may have changed default ceiling height prior to building the floor which would explain how the OP ended up in the predicament......  but based on past experience,  it may not of been user error,  but CA reacting to some subtle setting or order of building that the OP used......   at least now the OP and myself will know of a possible fix for the situation.

We've seen instances of Chief changing ceiling heights in plans with some rooms non-standard floor or ceiling elevations.  They are aware and are, I believe, addressing it.

This Raytrace took over 50 min. and had only done 6 passes.  I would agree with Kirk that if I had saved the drawing and only took a Raytrace of the area I wanted it would have been much faster.  That being said it is a waste of time either way.  I feel like I have a graphics card that should make lightspeed of this but I now feel that I need a new graphics card to keep up.

Just from your image, those couches look like they will be very high in face count - in those button details.

And - as Kirk pointed out, would you really have all those can lights on in an interior view?  

So - very high face count on each of several sofas and chairs + multiple light sources, each calculating each of those faces - logarithmically increases ray trace time.  Simplify!

Ha!  "doh"  Sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake!~

Hy Guys,

My renovation plan is making me to ask more and more questions  . It's time for outdoor decoration and I am looking for some Unique Landscape Designers. What I want is a breathtaking result which should be fabulous! I am really crazy on home decor and I like to hear from all of you people. Can you please share me your design ideas and experiences? One suggestion which I got from an fb friend is Infinity Gardens.

Thank you.

You've veered so far off topic with this last post that some who might respond will miss it.  I recommend a new thread.

So...

Those who said to lose the invisible walls are correct.  You only need invisible walls aligning over walls below when they are at a change in floor height.  You don't have that.

I don't understand the roof over the 2nd floor deck.  Is that second floor deck supposed to be a covered porch?  Or is that roof plane supposed to be under the deck?

I don't understand the extra ceiling planes.  What is that supposed to accomplish?

I think Michael (Alaskan Son) is steering you correctly.  It appears you're adding parts and pieces that are not necessary.

So...

Those who said to lose the invisible walls are correct.  You only need invisible walls aligning over walls below when they are at a change in floor height.  You don't have that.

I don't understand the roof over the 2nd floor deck.  Is that second floor deck supposed to be a covered porch?  Or is that roof plane supposed to be under the deck?

I don't understand the extra ceiling planes.  What is that supposed to accomplish?

Just change that "Deck" to a "Porch".

A Porch has a Roof.  A Deck doesn't.

Except that if the floor is framed like a Deck, then use Deck, go to the Structures tab and check the box for it to have a roof.

Post your plan file. Sometimes this is a room definition problem, but hard to know without poking around the plan.

Yep.  If you don't fully understand how rooms work in Chief, you can get a bad result.  But - for us to coach you, definitely need the plan file itself.  

 Agreed...except that in this particular instance I'm not even sure the solutions we have should be considered "Clever Tricks".  Putting a camera outside a deepened terrain skirt just seems like using the right tool for the job...

 

and I don't even think using a CAD mask is a workaround.  I think if we were given the exact same polyline tools we have now under the heading "Layout mask" (or some other appropriate term) that some people would think we had a cool new tool.  As with many things its just the way you look at it. 

Yeah - I agree.  "Clever tricks" maybe should be just "smart use of existing tools".    But sometimes it makes me feel "smart" to use "clever tricks"!  We all need to feel smart now and then.   ;-)

All jokes aside, there has to be some sort of balance. If we're given independent controls for every little thing we think of, Chief could become a bloated monstrosity pretty quickly.

And - my litmus test for how loudly to "beech and wine" about something is this:

1. Can we do it now?  In this case, yes.
2. Does it take blinkin' forever to do it now?  In this case, no.
3. How many other things are on "the list" that fail the first two, and would I put this ahead of more than a couple dozen of them?  In this case - my answer is "a lot", and "nope".

So this for me is just something where I go to my Department of Clever Tricks and git 'er done.

Wendy,

 

There is a solution - Dermot needs to fix it

Yeah...  I think Doug once took a run at a solution using current tools and came up empty.  So Dermot....!!!!! Help us....!!!!!!!!!!!  ;-)

That would make it much more difficult. It would require some slick work with contours but it wouldn't be easy.

Hmmm - I do believe I rest my case!  But I'm bummed.  I was hoping there was an actual solution.

Wendy,

 

When I want that kind of thing I suppress the Road Curb, depress the road surfact with Terrain Region(s) and add a Terrain Curb.

Huh?  Can you elaborate - "depress the road surface with Terrain Region(2)"?  My site is sloped.

I just want the curb to actually truly disappear when it's said to have a driveway cut a curb at the road.  Right now it just depresses it.  if the curb is a different material than the drive and road - say granite vs asphalt - got that blinkin' 6" wide material in all my raytraces.

btw - I think xfrog is the original supplier of the plants in Chief!  Unless I'm much mistaken.

I reported the issue to tech support - they've confirmed the issue and forwarded it to the developers.

Awesome!   Things carry more weight when they come from a variety of users - not just Miss Prissy Pants here.   ;-)

and i report it as a bug.  it feels buggish.

Shoot an orthographic overview then Tools>Symbol>Convert to Symbol.

Yep. 

And a tip for after:  Your window glass will not raytrace the same.  Glass in windows in chief is "magic glass", but not in symbols.  Use the Rainbow tool to select glass in your symbol, material properties tab, turn Reflectance and Transparency both up to maybe 75%.  Otherwise you'll get this flat greyish window thing.

And it's actually  more annoying.  In the exterior example, the brick wraps in 3D but not 2D.  When the wall is interior and T's off at the exterior wall - no wrap.  No matter how I configure wall breaks, balloon orders, custom editing of wall connection - cannot get a clean demising wall in 3D.

Sending it in as an addendum to yours!  

Thank you Mr. Troll!  That was my next step, sending in as a "bug" - 'cause it sure was feeling buggish to me!  Thanks for the relay leg!

I even made that exterior wall "balloon" - but it didn't.  In an annoying paradox, we'll have the walls for a basement bulkhead entrance extend up to the roof above when the roof overhang is a mere 12".  Yet this gap of about 12" - no bueno.

Here's a file demonstrating use of a Roof Plane to cap an exterior demising wall.  

Roof planes:

• edited the livin' crap out of them to minimize framing.
• roof surface made thicker - concrete for roof and for any remaining sliver of "framing".  'cause that's kinda what they use to cap a brick demising wall.  (ps, you know those concrete capped portions of an exterior fireplace structure?  Roof plane works here too.  Build brick housing using a single wythe brick wall, or brick on CMU - whatever is appropriate to actual structure).

Note that in this example I was not successful getting correct continuous brick when the demising wall was flush with the facade of the building.  Maybe somebody else can slay that dragon?

Interior - ask yourself what caps that wall?  is it drywall?  OK fine, make your "roof" have a 1/2" roof surface, drywall.  Is it wood trim?  OK fine - 3/4" and make the material match your trim.

And yes - you can force wall to be Manual top" and then remove the roof plane.  You have to weigh benefit of having "roof" plane vs not.

angled wall cap.zip

What I would do is put an actual roof on it!  I'd put a roof that's just the width of the roof, with the "eave" at the low side, and edit to the roof plane to have the kind of minimal framing etc that a wall cap could have.

Your original format is very exact and specific.  It might be easier to print it as a PDF and import that - surest way to maintain the look exactly.

I agree with Johnny.  Chief does work on a network - I've been on one since 2007.  Our current network drive is a Synology NAS.  So "doesn't support" doesn't mean "it won't work on a network."  It means they are not going to tell you how to configure your network.  And it does sound like this isn't a Chief configuration issue, but rather a network configuration issue.  

I will also say that they officially say you should work locally.  We made the decision that the risk of human error from working locally is greater than the risk of data loss over a network.  People dragging files back and forth almost guarantees a big Oops.  However, there is still some data loss risk over a network.  A network simply adds more opportunities for things to go wrong.  We do see very occasional instances of files simply not saving.  So be diligent in checking save dates.  It might be rare, but it hurts when it happens.