Quieve

15 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

This is an absolutely fabulous idea...if all you need to do is show a terrain cross section and your regular CAD tools have all gone on the fritz.

 

Sorry, but I'm not sure you've given this the proper consideration.  Building a terrain is far more complicated than the simple waves you've described.  What you have shown involves amplitude and frequency.  First off, with terrain definitions, there technically is no amplitude.  It could rise but never drop, or visa versa.  Secondly, the frequency is rarely if ever constant from one elevation line to the next. 

 

At best, your setting could only ever apply to one single section cut plane out of the infinite number of cut planes you could be dealing with.  Anything outside that cut plane would need to be interpolated much like it is now.  Think about it...If you have 2 contour lines that are 6 inches apart at one location and 30 feet apart at another location, how is a simple wave definition supposed to apply?

 

I agree that there are ways that the terrain could be simplified in Chief.  I'm just not convinced that this is one of them. 

I'm not sure if I completely understand what your argument is... Amplitude means that say elevation of 6' would produce a hill that is either 20' wide or 100' wide. You adjust the width.  But in your example with different points the program would find a median between each of these two points and smooth it out. So where they're 6" apart the the rise/fall would be more sharp than where it is 30'. Or, if set amplitude is smaller than the distance to the next set elevaiton line/point, it would just build a hill and then remain flat beyond it's set width. Seems simple to me.

For gradual declines/inclines a low/high-pass-like  filter can be used.

For sharp elevations/drops a regular peak -like filter.

There's band filter for plateau like formations. 

All these can still be used with elevation lines or point, line keep things steady (and they could be straight or polylines), point specify an effect of smaller variations. Additional tools can be created. 

Every other change could be use by manipulation of these two. I think CA team could easily figure out how to implement it properly. The current system produces wacky/unpredictable terrain changes with any elevation point. Every time I draw something when I look at the rendering I can't believe my eyes "what in the world did it do?". I think any change would be better than the current system. CA got many things right, but terrain rendering is not one of them. 

Quote

 

Smoothing? This way you can do a lot more than smoothing. You'd have of course to insert a few more to render some more complex terrain lines, but to achieve a similar effect with the current system you have to draw probably something like 2,185 lines and then spend a few hours dragging them back and forth to find the right look... EQ-style would provide accurate terrain drawing with minimum effort and I think it would be far more accurate. If this could be somehow implemented in 3D view where you could see elevation points or lines and manipulate Q number and visualize changes it would be absolutely awesome.

I find the current terrain elevation system absolutely atroscious. You have to draw numerous lines to make something as simple as this:

I always found it a nightmare with these lines, a lot of trial and error is involved to get it right. It's just a terrible, terrible system... 

There is so much simpler and faster way to do it, just use the Audio EQ style? Low-pass filter, high pass filter, or regular dip/peak?  Why not just draw A SINGLE line and then then specify how high/low and sharply/widely it curves. 

Step 1: draw an elevation line.

Step 2: specify type, height/width of effect.

Done.

Not drawing 10 lines and then dragging them back and forth nonsense to get things right. That's just such a terribly inefficient and frustrating way to program elevations, I'm so surprised we're still doing this in year of 2018... 

Open the Tub "Symbol dbx"  and in Options check "Inserts in Countertop".  That makes the hole automatic.  You will still have to make the cabinet "empty" or just use a countertop sitting on a wall surround.

 

If you want to skip the process of making the cabinet empty - just use a custom countertop about 14-15" thick (no cabinet) with the bottom of the countertop sitting on the floor.

 

There are Tubs in the Library that already work this way.

Thanks. This is the best method. I don't understand why on earth the tubs in the library don't have this option pre-checked. Weird ommission.

Ok never mind, figured it out. You have to modify the base cabinet by deleting everything inside it, and then creating a blank side area...

I don't know what the CA designers were thinking... "Let's turn a simple one-click function into a 5-minute rocket science affair!". Because apparently all the CA users were complaining how easy it was to place a tub into a cabinet and they all requested making it a lot more challenging, conunterintuitive and time consuming.

Really don't understand you guys...

Cut a hole on the countertop... In the plan view use Rectangular PLine outline the tub, select and use convert tool to countertop and select Hole in Countertop and you be all set.

I'm not sure I understand your instructions... I draw a rectangular polyline inside the cabinet about the size of the tub, then convert it to countertop hole. But there's no hole appearing in the countertop. What am I doing wrong?

Used to be just a one-click affair. Now in CA7 just dropping it into a cabinet doesn't work. How is it supposed to be done? Can't find any help articles on that.

1. Shortcut to paint a separate wall or roof plane with a single click instead of going through 20 menus of wall properties. CTRL+SHIFT+click or something like that

2. Cure material eyedropper amnesia: if I have to move to another room to paint the same material and switch to camera controls, it completely forgets the last material chosen. Please make it remember the last chosen material.

Thank you all for help,

 

I thought there is an easier way. I would like to see "material painter" tool with single wall mode. So I can paint a single wall without breaking walls, changing types and copying new ones. Its just a wall paint, please make it easier.  

Amen... We're on CA #16 (!) and it's still not here... Painting/applying different textures to separate walls is something I'm sure that absolutely everyone does 100 times a day, why do you have to spend like 20 clicks for such a simple and common task in this day and age is beyond me. How hard is it to add a shortcut like CTRL+click with material painter to paint a wall?