keithhe

OK, Doing a simple dock plan as part of a larger plan I'm working on and something weird happening. This is a modification to an existing dock/boathouse where I placed the pilings where they actually exist so that changes will utilize those, as possible. Strict rules about footprints and pilings there. Problem is that I drew a storage shed/bar area and all looks fine. I go to delete the shed (any of the walls) and everything disappears?? Note that the "band boards" are added on a separate layer as they are important to how this all works and for eventual roof layout. (Roof there now is a joke as both folks are pilots in case anyone is wondering) So I can move the shed walls, no problem, but deleting any of them removes the entire deck and the band boards in render view, both of which are different layers than the walls I'm trying to delete. Can't figure out the relationship?? This is just a WIP but this is an odd problem I can't quite figure out. Ideas?? I suspected that perhaps was related to the "room" created being also a deck on a deck, but changing it also has effect of deleting everything?? Thanks, Dock Changes Problem.plan

Thanks Scott, so it can show up with really large terrain, and I think perhaps the more terrain contours the more likely, but can't prove that. Add loading it up with a lot of "stuff" and it can happen to some degree. I was even seeing it on the house symbols imported which struck as me as weird, and would have to change them in their plan, then make new symbol, or find another solution. In my case, primarily the terrain was the issue. Who knew you couldn't model a 36 mile long lake in a single plan?? Kidding, I was only doing a section of it out from the shore. Knowing how to battle it is the key, where it might matter. If you see it in a render it will be there in the ray trace, for example. I suspect everyone has seen it at one point or another and hopefully this thread can help people that search it out on ways to reduce or even eliminate it. Scott, really interested in your subdivision project and will follow your progress on that.

Thanks Dave. That helps refresh my admittedly lousy memory. Val, I agree, the siding is something I had started doing long time ago, but the terrain one is what screwed me on this one, primarily. This is way more terrain than I had ever done before that contains the terrain contour data for the neighborhood out several houses either side and across the street, lake, which I went out to the "deep end" so to speak, and immediate neighbor houses, boathouses as symbols. The thing that immediately tamed it was to reduce the lake back toward shore. The camera clipping trick also works well, until you try to use it in a close in situation where you need to change it back or a lot in front of you will be gone Scott, I know you are working a subdivision thing, try going stupid large on the terrain perimeter and see what you get, as an experiment. No video required.

Thanks Dave. I ended up finding the best of the "swimming pool" water (meaning darker like a lake) and did change to something a little more acceptable. Thanks for the reply though !!!

Thanks Joe, I thought about that and haven't tried one yet that looks this way. Perhaps this is what my SSA is for? I should call them LOL

Does anyone have an idea what surface Chief used in this Help Article? I like the way it looks much better than the water options that are better suited to a swimming pool than a lake.

Mike, So you change the OSB (chief default) to shingles? Where do you make that change?

Thanks Glenn, I've been working to try all these great pointers out. I experiment with simple throw away stuff for house and garage to get the hang of it before I bring my actual model in and park it. I think I get it now. Appreciate all the good advise. I recognize that everyone has a different way of doing things, for a reason, and I try them out and I suspect like most people we end up with some hybrid of all the experience and advise we receive over the years.

Thanks Glenn, I checked and have center at middle between two plats of most concern. I think primarily I had too large a terrain. Scaled that back, plus camera settings as well as material changes and it's gone, for now. Glenn, is the only way to change shingle thickness via the rainbow tool? Wall related materials are easy enough, but shingles I'm not sure I have right. I also read someone saying to "paint" the OSB sheathing shingle, but no idea how you would do that. Is there a way to "hide" shingles so just OSB shows to allow that?

Thanks Larry, I went up to 400" with no appreciable difference. Checked my card and it's up to date. Finally I reduced my admittedly large terrain and that calmed things down a lot. Increase siding size and forgot how to do the same for shingles? I think I found it via the rainbow tool, but I thought there was another way, similar to the wall definitions and layers.

Are there any new tricks for reducing or eliminating Z-fighting in renders? The only two I'm aware of, and usually work, are to "thicken" the material in the DBX and setting camera defaults/ Scene Clipping/Clip Surfaces Within to 300-400" which usually works. In fact had not seen it for a while and I thought perhaps X6 fixed it, but nope, it's still there. Only ever really see it on roofing and lesser degree on siding and just wondering if there are any other tricks to reduce? Thanks,

Glenn, Nice plan, and looks like it might double as a ski resort in the winter, provided you get the lifts in. I'm giving it a go and will see how it works. Gotta learn and doing it is the only way I know, plus a little help from my friends. That would be a great title for a song?? Thanks guys

Thanks Dave and Jim, I've been playing around a little to get it just to look right, next door. The only thing that was happening of concern, and noticed at distance you could see terrain coming over a concrete patio below a deck. A terrain hole under that area fixed that. Not really concerned about what get through the walls to inside as that can't be seen. Getting the house symbol geographically where it is actually positioned was easy, but getting the terrain to play nice with it was a bit of work. I think I have as well as is necessary for its purpose. I suspect this is easy too, with more experience on what does what to what. Split screens and experimentation helped that learning curve. I just have very limited experience with terrain as most of what I have done it is irrelevant. Always learning though, and that is a good thing. Thanks again guys

Jim, Thanks, we "flat landers" don't generally have to deal much with this. Generally, virtually all the plats I've worked on have been flat or nearly so where there were no real issues with terrain. I have usually only needed to show the contours for permitting, but flat annotations and not live in the plans so this is new territory for me. If I understand you correctly I change the terrain pad to reflect the "first level" 0'00" elevation. Perfect !! Never stop learning in this program, and I thank you again for the great advise.

Related to another thread, but topic different so started this thread so it does not get lost. In placing a house symbol in a master plot plan for part of the hood (neighbor to target house) I learned that symbols do not retain or cut terrain. I have the actual contour GIS terrain elevations in, but clearly some grading is expected and the GIS data is likely not perfect on the 2' interval. So, strategy to have it look correct? Recall this is neighbor house, which has very similar terrain slope to lake as does target house, so in its case just want it to look right. Is it best to cut the terrain elevation lines at the "house symbol" or just goof with the lines to get the basement excavated of the grass currently inside the house? Or, just add flat terrain regions where needed to make the symbol look correct? Thanks,

Perry, You and Joe are interchangeable, I thought, although admittedly I have no idea who has the better handicap between you three southern left coaters

Jim, I do have the actual ASL ( I think I wrote AGL earlier, which comes up in my life more often as a pilot). Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if say my upper contour is say 234' ASL, and I put the house at 0'0" would that not sink the house below terrain, or am I missing something?

Joe, I had to read what you wrote several times to grasp what you meant, but makes perfect sense now. OK, I will start to add Levels to all my plans from now on and will get out of the habit of using Level 0 as basement. Great advise guys !!!!

Oh, so sorry Joe "Yoda", and I know the difference between you folks.

Scott, OK, not quite sure I follow this line of though either? In the case, say of a walkout, how do you do this? Are you just using the Level 1 then as the "basement" rather than Level 0? Then Level "1" is actually Level "2"

Jim, Thanks again. I didn't have the DWG/DXF files I wanted for the topo, but did have an accurate PDF I brought in and carefully scaled then traced the elevation contours. It worked well, but boy I wished I had that already in CAD. My question, concerns this, is given I have the know contours and actual ASL data, is it better to use that data, and adjust the buildings to reflect, or pick a contour, any contour and assign it 0" and then subtract downhill and add downhill 2'?? I currently am using the latter way, but not sure of the pros and cons of either way. Scott, now I get it, with the great assist by your golf partner Perry. Thanks Perry. with a 0" value and no walls they are there for the taking if needed. I have to assume though that you are also adding a foundation level to the buildings, and individually adjust their height to reflect walkout or crawl space? Thant's a great idea, and one I will start using!!!

Scott, Not sure I understand this? They all have 4 floors? Is this just the rich neighborhood that has all 4-5 story houses, or is there some technique shortcut you are using?

Thanks Scott and Jim, I, frankly, have never had to deal with the dreaded outbuilding problem before, thus why I'm asking on here for all the gifted folks to weigh in on it. Scott, I would ideally like to keep in same plan, but how do you get around the problems encountered when you add floors, for example? If I add the floor to the garage for the small guest suite I get an unwanted new floor on the house, same goes for foundation related issues. I do manual roofs for the most part, so get around those global changes. Just curious the strategy you folks use. Jim, the separate plans is the "easy" way, as I have not gotten around the issues I mentioned to Scott. I may develop in their own plans, then when actual know locations are set in stone, move to a live plan and adjust. Just not sure yet. Related, in this case is also the precise location where the building or buildings will eventually reside on the lot, so having to move them often up and down and side to side within the terrain master file I created is also an issue. As Glenn mentioned, I can move the terrain, but as the lot is quite sloped and is not a normal rectangle, the settings on every given location would need to be changed for buildings "C" height to accommodate. Is there a preferred way, to annotate the topo data? I have the actual accurate data I'm using (2' GIS) and "made" up the numbering from top to bottom lake but not sure if that is the best way to handle this. As usual, thanks guys!! Your input, knowledge and assistance is very much appreciated.

Thanks Jim, My experiments are proving out what you said, and I feared, hence the original post. I thought my lot was steep!! It actually is, but not quite the cliff you were dealing with. Although in my case, the house goes on the slope. Curious in the renders you show, did you put the boathouse as a symbol too? I have several I will be bringing in, but as symbols like the neighbor homes. I have not done them yet, but in my case they are 1300 and 200o square foot and over the water. I'm guessing I will just sink the symbol into the already established terrain feature (water) where they actually exist.

Thanks Glenn. I'll try this and see how it works.