keithhe

Thanks again Joe, that worked, although initially I was using the terrain feature way and it was tuning into a mess, so went with option 2, as Jon mentioned. Learn new stuff every day here. Thanks guys.

Thanks Joe, I think I follow what you said..... I'll try that. Clearly the CA designers have never gone swimming anywhere before. I think they are land locked though in their defense, and in the middle of nowhere Idaho or somewhere. Next time I go diving I will need to shoot a photo for them. I guess what is confusing, to me anyway, is in what situation would you want water to not be level, other than MC Escher drawings?

No kidding, the lake is following the terrain. So my topic question is actually not the joke I thought it was. This is crazy, and nothing I knew was possible in CA. So, how does one level a lake? Is there something special with terrain I need to do, as I simply added a water feature, and set it's level, in relation to the elevation data I have. Some of the elevation lines, near shore, do come in and out of the water.

Joe and Johathan, I suspected as much too, but not having dealt with water other than down there at Lake Gaston, didn't know water could "follow terrain". I made assumption water would seek level. How, exactly, does one make water not follow terrain? Shouldn't the surface just be flat at elevation feature was given, like normal on planet? No idea how to fix this, and again, if needed, I'll send to an off site cloud. Thanks, Keith

I'm pretty sure I'm in the running for Weirdest Questions Asked on this forum of all time, but seeing something odd on the level of two symbols in a drawing. (see attached photo) Before you ask, I can't easily upload this plan as it is huge and only really used for site reference stuff. If pressed, I will upload to Drop, or something.... Reference the two docks (both created outside plan and made into symbol to position here), and either they , or the lake is not level. So my question is, can a symbol be made, not level? Certainly didn't try to do that. I'm pretty sure the water (it's live here) is level. Or is the terrain in live plan below water level able to create this. Anyway, something odd happening, and hopefully someone will know what it might be. Given that both docks show this exact same tilt, I suspect there is a terrain issue below water level, but not sure why that would matter on a symbol) Guesses are fine. Again, if I need to, I will upload this live plan to Cloud if it will help anyone (note about 65Mb)

Could not agree more Michael. I have never figured out why people are so hesitant to post their plans?? Is it pride or something, not sure, but people willing will just move along as it's simply guessing without being able to see the plan, and I can speak for me here, I won't waste the time guessing. Case in point. This thread https://chieftalk.chiefarchitect.com/index.php?/topic/7453-ray-trace-issues/, posted without a plan. I asked him to post, he posted, and I solved it. I would never have figured that out without ability to look through the plan, and eliminate things.

OK, I write this to hopefully help others, who might experience same issue, and not as a knock in anyway to you. I did this early on in my CA learning curve to a much lesser extent. As it looked like z-fighting to me, I have learned that this can be caused by generally just four things.. 1) Two objects in same space. (checked this and not your case). 2) Too thin a material. (can't really be the case here, with objects that were fighting, but you will see this on roof tiles and siding sometimes. If you do, simply change the material thickness to like 1/4" or something and it will fix usually) 3) Too large a terrain perimeter (not bad in your case) 4) Too far from origin. Bingo, we have a winner. See below shots, but in the all on (lower floor) you have some type of site plan a few MILES east (to the right) from the actual house and terrain perimeter, but that was not the really issue. The real issue was that you were, holy cow...... 10.5 MILES, yes miles, from the origin. That's way out of the range of this program, even if the plan was to build a subdivision. (see photos attached) Lessons here. Start your plans at the origin. Tommy Blair taught me years ago to set a few walls in an "L" arrangement, about 6 feet long is fine, right at the origin (0,0). Now save as your template plan and you will always start right there, as walls are usually the first thing we do. Although it is not unusual for AutoCAD folks to have things all over the space, does not work here. The site plan way out to the east, need not be there. Should be a layer. If you are first floor, all on plan, click the zoom extents to see what might be hidden out there. If anything is outside your terrain perimeter, find and get rid of it. Oly (and please add your name to your signature, with version you are using) here' how to fix your issue. Once above is done, Click Edit > Edit Area > Edit Area All Floors. Draw a marquee around entire plan with perimeter. Next Click Transform Replicate Tool Click Move Make Sure Absolute Location Radio is selected Make X and Y (0, 0) This can be messy at times, so save a copy before you start. See photo attached. The tiny little black dot top left is the entire contents inside the perimeter. The "X" is the origin 10.5 miles away. The other blur to right of the plan perimeter is a site plan or something (can't be there)

You are going to laugh (I did) when you hear what this was. It was the most extreme case of this I had seen. More to follow in a few minutes... I need to take a few shots to explain this

Oly, (don't know your name) I have spent quite some time on this, and I'm still at a loss. I thought, initially this might be lighting or material related and made a number of changes, with same results. I put the dryer outside, same results, so this is something in the plan, and not program related. I see this z-fighting, if that is what this is, in other locations/materials too. A variety of camera views shows this as well. I changed the sun angles and didn't help on floor overviews. This seems like what I see in a very dark room (little or no light) but not the case in floor overview where this is still happening. There are some really smart folks on this forum, and hopefully one will come along and figure this out. I'm as curious as anyone right now.

Bill, That was it. So stupid of me. This seems second nature on a home where you are thinking floors (platforms) but for reasons that I can't understand, it just didn't even occur to me on a boat house where "floors" are not really a thought. Thanks and boy do I feel stupid........

Can you post the plan? Much easier to see what might be going on.

Hi Dave, There is/was a deck directly below where the upper deck is. When I put in the upper, the lower goes away, just in part below the upper. (see attached) As for landing lower rail, I can't change the height of the lower rail, to match a normal walkway or deck type rail. Seems to default to on top of decking. (see attached) Thanks, Keith

Just a guess, but camera might still be partially in wall? What distance do you have clipping and walls set in "default settings" > "camera" > "general camera"?

Kind of a simple question, I suspect. I'm doing a quick boathouse that I will convert to symbol as a background on lake behind actual project house. This exists, so no real structural concerns, just making it look right-ish. Problem is I can't stack decks, in this case "docks" on top of each other. Not sure why. I can get the upper or lower right, but not both, as either wipes out the other in every way I have tried this. I know I could probably do one or the other in Poly solids, but don't really want to do that, if I don't have to. Attached plan shows the upper deck area, and there is dock supposed to be below it, but part directly below goes away when upper goes on. How to handle this? Not related, but on this plan, is there any way to change the railing on the stair landings? Can't figure out a way to match the walkway/stairs, 4" from surface. You'll see it goes all the way to deck. Thanks, Bob Dock for Symbol 2.plan

Greg, It had to do with bringing it into a Metric Plan. It works fine coming into a Imperial Plan

Almost had to be the metric thing, as I had tried numerous downloads of the file, before posting here, and all did the same thing. If this was created in a imperial units format, the metric thing may have just screwed it up.

Michael, Thanks for your assistance on this. For you, and all that may encounter this, here is what I did "differently" that caused this and how it now works. I had been bringing this in to the existing plan that I needed it in, a Central American Metric Plan I'm needing this on. The key, I think, is it's metric, whereby I usually just do imperial. I brought it into a "New" plan, imperial, and it works just fine. The other possibility, is that it simply needed to come into a "New" plan, but I have gone direct to existing plans before many times without any issues. Not sure, but in case anyone else has this issue in the future. Thanks again Michael, as you telling me it worked for you got me to think what was different between what I was doing, versus you. That helped me figure it out.

I had never just done a drag and drop, and didn't even know that you could do that, versus using CA import. But, results are the same for me?? Clearly I'm missing something as I used the 2015, and also using X7. See what I get when it comes in >>>

Michael, I guess I have some questions then. What version of SU are you using? What, if anything, did you do in the import process (there in SU and while into CA)? Thanks, Keith

I have imported quite a few skp files into CA without much issue, until now. In this case the item I wanted, looks perfectly normal in Sketchup, comes into CA "exploded" ,in pieces that is, and although I can see the individual items, can't "unblock" in CA to even try to put it back together. Is there something new I'm missing? I have done complex and simple imports before, but this is happening on several items I just tried. Tried to "make component" in Sketchup and that didn't help. Again, looks normal there, whacked and locked in CA. One case in point is here: https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model.html?id=u6bf3fe8a-55cd-48af-988d-a2c2314ef302 Any Sketchup folks here that might have a clue? Thanks, Keith

I know this is a really old thread, but the actual answer to Scott's issue with the drawing sheet is under "View" then very bottom of drop down toggle "Drawing Sheet" on or off. This had bugged me too and was not sure how to rid of it then stumbled onto Scott's video, but solution by JB did not work. My check box was not selected. Just an FYI if Scott has not figured it out by now, and I guess he has....

OK, To add to the calculations previously.... Plan making walls correct (lose extra two stone wall layers (incorrect in original)) 1:05 to do full Orthographic (lines at 12" spacing) Almost cuts speed in half Same as above with 24" spacing 0:33 (half again) Same as above with 48" spacing 0:17.5 (half again) So all of these things help make an appreciable difference This is just a learning exercise, for me, and FYI for others that were not aware, as the OP evidently checked out of the thread.

OK, Answered part of my question. Plan as is: 1:55 to do full Orthographic Plan making walls correct (lose extra two wall layers) 1:05 " " Change stone to stucco 0:16 seconds No idea how to change the pattern lines as Doug mentioned. This is relative to speed of your machine, but tells a lot about what influences the speed.

There are actually three stone wall layers per wall I see in DBX properties. Should just be 1. (see post 15) No question the lines in the stone though are an anchor, in this particular case. I'm not at all sure if CA is dealing with all those or not, or just what it sees on the outside? Smart folks have any ideas on this?? I found whacking the layers back to "normal" wall layers, or what would be normal to me, made it faster, but without a doubt changing all the stone to stucco really made a large difference in times. I don't see the file size as particularly big.

Joe, X7 is released next week? Had not heard that.....