Pad Elevation

[GerryT]

Ok – I’m going to ask the same question again that I’ve asked periodically since X1.

Where is the center point of the building pad?

I ask the question here because Chief’s TS – either doesn’t know or won’t answer (for whatever reason).

Chief’s help states: ”The program automatically positions Floor 1 a set distance above the terrain. To do this, it first finds the center point of the building footprint. “

But what is the “center point” – center of extents – or centroid or what?

I’ve attached a plan with a irregular footprint. The program shows pad elevation (supposed center) at 62’ ( 63.68 – 1-.5 - .125). The terrain contours show the center pad footprint elevation at approx. 71’, with the 62’ point at the left edge.

So what did I miss here?. A point to anyone who can answer?
 

terrain elev.zip

[dshall]

My answer is.... who the *&*&^ cares....  even if I knew,  it would be too complicated to figure out.  Sorry Gerry,  I really don't get it and apparently you do not get it either and apparently the CA gurus don't get it and even if somebody understood it,  how would you use it?

 

I guess the question to you would be why do you care and how would that help you do whatever you do?

 

I suppose my answer would be there are other methods to do whatever you might be trying to do.

 

Sorry,  I was not able to actually answer your question,  it would be interesting if ANYBODY can answer your question and then if they can explain how that would use this info.

[GerryT]

Scott:

 

I guess my answer is that I think things should work as they are described and if they don't, they should be noted as such. I thought this was the point of paying for Tech Support.

 

As to usage. the auto pad elev would be a great starting point which was probably it's original intent.

 

However, you just answered my question as to why some things in Chief don't work and are ignored. You get the point.

.

[KilgoreTrout]

"Where is the center point of the building pad?"

 

Here's my guess.  I would create a room polyline for the exterior of the building.  When you select it, Chief puts a handle where Chief thinks the center is.  I bet this is the same point they use for the building pad.

[GerryT]

"Where is the center point of the building pad?"

 

Here's my guess.  I would create a room polyline for the exterior of the building.  When you select it, Chief puts a handle where Chief thinks the center is.  I bet this is the same point they use for the building pad.

 

 

Nope -- Try it?

 

A good guess and reasonable. Note that according to Chief, in this plan, the center is at about 62' on the terrain. I do acknowledge that Chief has always said that their contours are only a approximation, but they can't be this far off?

[dshall]

"Where is the center point of the building pad?"

 

Here's my guess.  I would create a room polyline for the exterior of the building.  When you select it, Chief puts a handle where Chief thinks the center is.  I bet this is the same point they use for the building pad.

Here is a question.  Who uses this info?  Does anybody use this info?  I will say that I do a lot of terrain plans and have never needed this info.

 

 Gerry I understand that you  want an answer,  I bet you do not get one from anybody,  and if you do get an answer,  I bet there is nobody who will explain to you how to use this info.

 

As much as I love the  program,  CA is not very good at explaining how to use many different functions within the program.  

[lbuttery]

Gerry:

 

just a refresher about this thread -  eleven pages worth from 2012

 

http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread.php?57635-The-dsh-Terrain-Building-Test&highlight=elevation+pad

 

CA still hasn't made the suggested changes

 

Doug did post various attempts to explain "pad elevation" etc

not sure he succeeded 

 

see Scott's video in post #109 in the old thread

good summary of what works and what is needed

 

Lew

[tommy1]

Glenn posted this in January 2012 and is how I look at it. A very simple approach.

 

"I think a lot of confusion arises because when you have a Terrain Perimeter with contours and you uncheck Auto Calculate Elevation.
Under these circumstances Pad Elevation is the elevation you are setting for Chief's zero floor level to - it has nothing to do with setting terrain building pads or elevation regions under the house - or nothing else to do with shaping or modifying the levels of the terrain.
It simply relates zero floor level to the terrain levels."

[lbuttery]

Tommy:

 

Scott's video shows this also (post #109)

 

What was requested back then was for CA to add a setting

to show the contours in relation to sea level also

 

setting on = sea level contours

 

setting off = house relative contours

 

Lew

[GerryT]

Glenn posted this in January 2012 and is how I look at it. A very simple approach.

 

It simply relates zero floor level to the terrain levels."

I think Chief's help has been pretty clear on this point. But could you tell me specifically : What level is used? If you don't know -- how can you use this feature.

 

It is clearly NOT the center point of the building pad as my plan shows,but that's what Chief's help states. So what is it - where?

 

Lew: terrain contours are assumed by Chief to be sea level-- no confusion there -- However, since the user enters the data, they can be anything you want and  floor one is adjusted (biased) in relation to that.  A problem arises when one commonly enters data heights in relation to a local monument, then someone asks what is that in relation to sea level - i.e. the monument bias? A solution was suggested to allow a sea level bias to adjust for local conditions.

[dshall]

......... A solution was suggested to allow a sea level bias to adjust for local conditions.

Yes,  this would be nice,  why can't we have it?  I don't know,  I know I would use it all the time.

[Kbird1]

It would be nice to have a toggle to "Turn Sea Level Off"  , so you can work with "Local Datum Heights"  (except when you need S.L.)  I have NEVER seen S.L. referenced on a set of Plans , it is always off the nearest City Datum point such as the top of the Curb or a Manhole Cover etc , the old standard set point used to be 100.000ft  (decimal) and everything + or - from that, far easier to work with , though why they can't convert it to fractional feet ( at the touch of a button)  for the Builder onsite doing layout etc ,I have no clue either .... the Construction Master Pro gets a  hell of a workout on those days....

 

maybe different in the metric world of course

 

M.

[dshall]

It would be nice to have a toggle to "Turn Sea Level Off"  , so you can work with "Local Datum Heights"  (except when you need S.L.)  I have NEVER seen S.L. referenced on a set of Plans , it is always off the nearest City Datum point such as the top of the Curb or a Manhole Cover etc , the old standard set point used to be 100.000ft  (decimal) and everything + or - from that, far easier to work with , though why they can't convert it to fractional feet ( at the touch of a button)  for the Builder onsite doing layout etc ,I have no clue either .... the Construction Master Pro gets a  hell of a workout on those days....

 

maybe different in the metric world of course

 

M.

Agree 100%,  a simple toggle to reference something other than sea level.  

 

That being said,  more and more I am able to get actual contours on line via city plans with topo lines referenced to sea level.  The internet is really wonderful.  I look at their topo on line,  take a screen shot,  import into plan, resize as necessary and then trace the city topo lines.

 

But again,  being able to  reference a know benchmark vs. sea level  would be a nice feature,  I have been asking for this for several years.

[Kbird1]

Yep , it's how the guy onsite works and he don't give a fat rat's a$$ about Sea Level (or decimal Feet) ... especially if he's 3000 miles from the Ocean

[digitecht]

HI All

Long time user and little poser. :-)

I have no problem with using the levels whether it is SL or arbitrary. However, i do find that getting the levels to what is used locally would be best.

In Melb, the authorities likes to see it relative to SL or we call it AHD. For this, we have surveyor survey the site and relates the site level and floor level of the any existing building to the SL (AHD), and i simply set the terrain pad elevation referenced to the CA building level. ie, if my existing building is measured at 102.5 AHD, then this is my CA floor level of 00, i then set the pad elevation to 102500 (in mm above sea level), All other contours or spot levels i then call them up as require, ie 101.9 AHD will be 101900 in my spot level DBX (or elevation line Dbx).

This way, the levels that shows on the plan is the correct level when other people reads it.

To me this would be simpler then mucking around trying to reduce the levels of the site and relate it to the CA level or 00.

We try not to do any arbitrary levels that only relates to the site as much as possible.

 

Just my thought

 

Frank

[lbuttery]

especially if he's 3000 miles from the Ocean

 

Mick:

 

I had to do a project in the Rocky's near a river

the house had to be past the 500 year flood plain

 

they wanted the data in terms of Sea Level

 

you gotta do what is required....

 

Lew

[Electromen]

CA automatically finds the center of the first floor and adds 6", (150mm)  plus the thickness of the floor platform and sill plate.  This is the pad elevation of the terrain.

[dshall]

For me the biggest reason to relate topo to CA is to avoid the mathematical gymnastics I must go through if I am designing two buildings on a steep lot.

It is much quicker to determine elevation differences if the elevations are relative to building 1 versus an outside benchmark.

Think about it..

And I don't know what the big deal is. Why won't CA throw in that option. They could probably throw this together during their lunch hour.

[Kbird1]

especially if he's 3000 miles from the Ocean

 

Mick:

 

I had to do a project in the Rocky's near a river

the house had to be past the 500 year flood plain

 

they wanted the data in terms of Sea Level

 

you gotta do what is required....

 

Lew

 

Yep , you as the Architect had to deal with it , cos the City demanded it, the Builder couldn't have cared less , and would of spent WAY less time trying to establish heights  

if it related to his local site rather than the beach in LA     of course that level changes every 6 hours with the tide too . so whatca gonna do  , no sure why they use SL since it's never constant , and give it a yr or 3 and Global Warming will change it all anyway..... maybe I just don't think BIG picture enough ?

 

its getting to the point where my 4ft level is gonna need a military grade GPS unit embedded in it just so I can figure out where the top of my slab should be...... 

 

But I realise it is cos the Surveyor's equipment is now calibrated this way . so is easy (for them) , and I get it on large civil engineering jobs etc ,but not for Residental , we still have to deal with decimal feet onsite too, who ever measure anything in DF except a surveyor? might as well still be using chains..... someone could easily hit a button and provide it in fractional feet (too)  so the guy with the ( fractional)  tape measure can get on with it and not have to figure out what 123.389 ft is 1st....