keithhe

These are a variety of Decora style switches and outlets ranging from single through 5 gang. There are also blank covers and switches/outlets you can put together if needed. Color is white, but can be adjusted to suit. These do not show a symbol in plan view, although I suspect there is a way to do that, I don't know how. I use these on Raytrace, as needed, as I typically only use Decora for dimmers and switches. Not sure if anyone needs/wants these, but adding to the stuff others have graciously shared. Decora 1.calibz

Bill, I thought that some of the CAD import data may have been wrong, and checked lines in and around the divots (primarily the secondary contours) and could not find anything inconsistent with what should have been there. No other elevation data brought in, so no idea where the divots are coming from, although you got rid of them. Still not sure what you did ??

Bill, you did this without removing any lines? From what I can see of the thumbnail, that looks great. Can you explain how you did that?

Thanks Joe. I'll do some strategic removal of elevation lines, as Mark did, which looks pretty good, and see what I can get. I think I will keep the lines, as non-elevation though, for any site work later, but not to generate terrain. Less is better.

Thanks Mark !! That looks a lot smoother. I'm of the opinion that too much elevation data lines in CA just messes things up. Just always too choppy I find, but curiously sometimes I have fairly busy terrains with quite a few elevation lines that look fine, and smooth. If I can just figure out the right combination of elevation data and other parameters to make them all work.

This terrain has proven difficult. I thought having the DWG for it would have made things easier, but not the case. Can anyone explain what CA is seeing that I can't in its interpolation of this terrain? Specifically the rows of divets (very deep) it is adding automatically and nothing I can do to get rid of them. Nothing I've seen on a terrain before. See attached photo and plan. Suggestions to "smooth" this terrain while keeping the overall slope nature of the lot? Thanks, Keith Costa Rica Test.plan

No problem Jonathan. I was able to bring in the elevation lines as one batch then the perimeter separately, but will go back and try to do this again in one step. I think I did as you say, and it failed. I was thinking that I did not want the property perimeter as the terrain perimeter, but I'm beginning to think that what's outside this very busy known terrain elevation area would give my computer a coronary trying to interpolate that unknown. Not sure yet, I'll try, but guess it will get wildly out of control.

Jonathan, That is exactly what I did on my first try, and nothing worked. Moved to proper layers, etc.. Can't figure out what you did differently?

Robert, Great information and thank you. Yeah, I was beginning to think the perimeter was what was creating the problems. I could not change it, and CA would not allow me to create another terrain perimeter. I'll try again, and see what I can do. Just not sure I understand this though, as all I really wanted was the lines, and let me assign the attributes as to what they are. I think then that I can do as you say, then separately trace the perimeter lines and block, copy paste to where I need it.

Perry, I'm curious, can you send a test file I can try? Not sure I know how you would know? I can also change a files attributes such as date created, author, you name it. I kind of sound like some creepy spy guy now.

Alan, Yeah, made sense to me too, except it is not working. No idea why primaries vanished. Can't see a thing other than the plan view. The perimeter of the plan seems to be the terrain perimeter, but I wanted that to be property lines, so changed that, but CA still thinks it is the terrain perimeter. Not sure why I can't simply call these various CAD lines what they are, assign attributes and have it do its thing.

Not having had access to a good CAD file for importing terrain data to a new drawing before and having done the PDF trace over method, I read through this CA article KB-00719 since this time I did have a good DWG. > http://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-00719/importing-terrain-elevation-data-from-a-dxf-or-dwg-file.html Second paragraph says, "Terrain drawings typically contain several types of data, specifically boundary data, elevation data and CAD data. These different types of data must each be imported separately, which means that you will need to import your drawing several times. There is no single CAD standard, and which layers the different data is on is determined by the drafts person that created the drawing." I guess I'm not sure why this would need to be done as separate steps? As I often do, I simply brought the entire thing in, fixed a few otherwise broken lines, and converted each to its own layers and or properties (elevation line, etc.), but it is not working. So, I guess for reasons I don't yet understand, I will need to do this in multiple steps, as article says. Most of the data is there, but the primary elevation lines simply departed the plans once I set their elevation. Gone, not layers turned off type thing. Just not sure why? Attached is the trial plan (primary contours were red and now gone) with just the CAD import and the DWG file, if anyone has any ideas. Costa Rica.plan ancla.zip

I have a PDF program that can crack virtually any PDF. Not at all hard to do. I can even then edit text, change it, add to it. One reason by the way why banks still use fax for some financial documents as there is no fully safe way to send via email. A banker explained that to me, as I was just thinking they were way behind the times. The example he gave, was if document was cracked, someone could inconspicuously change language that nobody on originating end would be aware of.

Interesting Joe, and was not aware, and really had not thought about it much. One thing for sure, the overall quality has gone down hill. I find old actual rough sawn 2x4's still in great shape. Some in the hundred year old ball park.

Joe, I was unaware that it was incremental, as aside from the nominal dimensions of today, I have frequently found the old 2x4's in renovations. Can't recall much in-between, but can recall the 2x? were closer to __ 5/8", so make sense. It could be worse though, as we could be using barleycorns and rods, whereas a 2x4 would be a 6x12 barleycorn, nominally 4.5x10.5 barleycorns? Is that right? Not too fluent in my barleycorns. I blame all of this on the British, to which Glenn is a descendant of, thus this is all Glenn's fault.

It actually would not be that hard really. From a design perspective, our 'putters don't much care if we enter metric or imperial units, so no issue there. From a products standpoint, virtually all manufacturers are also using CAD-CAM so it would be a simple matter to change the CAD to cut, as desired. Really not that big an issue, other than afraid of the "unknown" factor. I would though miss going to the lumber yard and sorting through the 23/32 plywood as my tape measure, given an electron-microscope is toted around with me, is easily determined. It is so simple as is. Come on, even our nominal lumber is "called" wrong these days. 2x4, etc. has not been a 2x4 for a very long time. Didn't hear about too many issues when they lost that half inch all the way around.

Where I've done plans in metric (Central America) wood is simply not a building material, so these material considerations are mostly mute. I would be interested in knowing though where it is still used, how they dimension their wood materials. Is a 2x4 (nominally 1.5" x 3.5") called a 50.8 x 101.6 (38.1 x 88.9)? Not really sure, but wood is not a common material in most parts of the world, we just happen to have %^&$ loads of it here.

Yeah, in metric plans I've done, I simply just use mm (other than site stuff where meters are easier with smaller numbers). No thinking involved, no math, no calculators, no fractions, just easy.

Agreed, I too thought it would be hard to learn, but there really was no learning curve at all. Very simple, never deal with fractions, and so much easier than imperial.

Very odd. Completely blank and 30MB

I know, and with one hand tied behind his back on.................. gasp...................... imperial plans. That alone is worth an award. I love metric, and wish we would finally switch.

I'm not sure that even with a read only plan I would give it out. There is still enough information in there, with or without another "Chief User", to make it a potentially valuable tool for someone. Even just to get competitive bids from a contractor, for example. Have your contract written in such a way that you get paid regardless, but I would be hesitant to hand over the CA plan.

Hi Mike, yeah, I was just pulling his leg, hence the smiley

OK, I'm going to play with this some and see. Re-reading through this thread, which has been very informative, has me seeing where I can improve my methods. Thanks to all !!!

Joe, I think this just said exactly what I've been wanting to do, just unsuccessfully so far. I want the ability to lock everything site related, to include all terrain elevations, features, roads, property lines, setbacks, and have house stay put. If changes are made to house, I could simply move the grouped "site" stuff as needed to accommodate, and hopefully all those pieces stay locked relative to one another. Not sure how that impacts layouts, but I'll figure this part out first.