Larry_Sweeney Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Am I trying the impossible with a 3D molding? For the "railing wall" I used a regular exterior wall and then resized it to suit my needs. I then tried using a 3D molding of the entire rail cap but I get the odd results shown in the attachments. I also tried using p-solids, for the areas of the railing cap directly on top of the wall with a combination of 3D moldings on the sides of the rail cap, but I couldn't find the right combination for the compound angles I'm trying to achieve with the angled railing wall for the steps. (This style was used on "level" railing around the porch) The client keeps making what he thinks are minor changes, but for me (and CA) they seem to me major hurtles. I hope I'm making sense of what I'm trying to accomplish. It seems I'm always taxing my abilities and CA's to the limits. My rail cap could quite possibly be accomplished in SU, but I have only work in SU a couple of times and it has been almost two years ago. I hate to have to go through the "learning curve again". Any and all advice will be greatly appreciated. (I'm coffeed out!) BERLIN FLARED RAILING.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imodel Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Compound angle like you have won't work with 3D molding from my experience. I have gotten the same thing before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryceEngstrom Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I played around with your plan, and have tried some of this kind of thing myself with no better results. Seems the program just doesn't interpolate the interface between the two properly. I would definitely send this in as a bug report since this really ought to be fixed. Can't much see the use for being able to manipulate molding polylines in 3D this way and not have them mesh properly. Probably a lot more math and computing power needed to accomplish it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_Emery Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 This is not a miter that would join correctly in real life. You have to level out the the top end of the ascending molding in the same direction, and then miter it into the level railing at the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry_Sweeney Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 Bill.......All this is ia a compound miter. It's all in finding the correct angles. Bryce.......I've scratched my head on this type of compound angle before. I "think" I found a work around. It's a real PITA, but it doesn't look to bad. I took the original 3D molding line I used in my first thread and made a copy of it. Then I turned off the molding on all the lines except the top one. I then took the copied 3D molding and turned of the top section. After that I sat the original 3D molding and the copied 3D molding on top of each other. By moving the molding lines around a little I was able to get a satisfactory look. It's not perfect but it'll work. I think with a little more playing around a person could learn to do this "fairly" quickly. The left side went much faster that the right side and looks a little better also. It's still a PITA, but it can be done. The actual molding profile probably makes a difference also. I'll have to play around with it some more.-------ANOTHER DAY! BERLIN FLARED RAILING 2.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_Emery Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 No, it's not just a compound miter. It needs to be two separate miters. If the flat end is brought around far enough to meet the flat portion, the width at the miter would be longer, and not meet correctly in terms of width. The ascending portion must flatten out for the miter to work. Chief is doing the best it can by matching the width, but the height of the ascending portion varies because of the angle of the cut. We run into this all the time in trim carpentry. Leveling out is an essential part of making things match up properly. You must add a short flat length of molding in the direction of the ascending molding for this to work It must be done in two stages: level out the ascending section so it will match in width and height, then make the flat miter which will match in width and height. Moldings can only match if they have one plane in common. You have a situation where there is no plane in common. This is not a Chief problem, but a failure to set up the miter properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_Emery Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Here is a similar molding made to level out properly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry_Sweeney Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 Bill.......If I'm understanding what you are showing me, CA will cap the "rail" wall I have in my model if it is just a rectangular board with square edges for the cap. As soon as there is a "molding profile" ( even just rounded over edges?) on the sides CA will have "problems". Is this correct? I'll have to play around with this sometime today. Appreciate the time you've taken to work on my problem. Do you work with SU much? If so, do you think SU can accomplish making the railing cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_Emery Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Here is the same construction done with your molding You still don't seem to understand what is required to make this joint work. It is exactly the same construction as you would do with your miter saw. It requires two separate cuts to make the joint, a bevel, and a miter. I have attached the plan file miter solved.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodCole Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 When you get a chance to play with this a bit more, you might try a few things that are a little less known, but can be useful at times. First off, the 3D Box tool can be sloped using the width vector settings. To say this is not quite intuitive is being kind, but it does allow for a few options that can be difficult to produce otherwise. Next is the 3D Face tool, it can be used to extrude a face in 3D space. Create the face and then select the item and then chose the Extrude Object edit button. You can also explode solids to get 3D Face objects that can then be extruded. Another thing that can be done is to to pull a cross section camera view and create a face there and then extrude that in 3D space. Often times I have found that if you shift select the object a second time it will bring up more editing options. I have not seen this documented, but it is very helpfull since the main edit options are very limited. Something that I have found to be very useful is to use the Library molding profiles and right click and choose Place Molding Profile. Place it, F6 to find it, then select it and choose the Convert Polyline edit tool. From there you can convert it to a polyline solid and then use the Convert to Solid edit tool. Select it and now explode it. You now have faces that can be extruded. What I do is delete the unwanted faces and then select the desired face and you can extrude it in 3D space. I have used this method for things like handrails that extrude in 3D space. Admittedly this is convoluted at best, but Chief seems to insist on placing hoops to jump through to do the most common of tasks. I have pretty much given up on using Chief for 3D work until they fix the 3D interface. Edit: These are intended for general information regarding working with Chief's 3D features that may come in handy at times and not anything specific to this particular problem. Bill appears to be handeling that quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_Emery Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Here are the cuts required to make this work. This process would not be necessary if the walls were aligned, or perpendicular. The angle of the intersection make this process necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbird1 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Bill , is correct this is how I would do it on the job too , ie make the small triangle with a 0" inside corner and have the rail turn the 15° (or whatever it is) then go down the slope. If you don't "turn the corner" 1st the two pieces will never be the same width as anything cut on the angle will have a longer "cut face" than the one cut at 90°. can you "fake it" in the real world ...yes if the angles aren't too bad but you will always have a hole in the back on one side as there is no material there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Just a note, my experiance with SU is that unlike CA, if you dont set it up properly, it simply won't work. Meaning if you use "follow-path" or push/pull and you run into a situation like this, it will simply stop you dead in your tracks. I suppose at least CA shows "best it can" as Bill said. BTW, he is right about this miter and the cuts. One of the strongest apps I know for this type of detailed work is Vectorworks, but going back-and-forth between apps has proven to be no time-saver IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imodel Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Me thinks there could be a solution without the wedgie. I have done some finish work in the past, but I am older, and rusting now. The problem with the wedgie is that it will not weather well. Maybe even crack during install? This is not per Larry's plan and is exaggerated to test my idea. I have also set smoothing to 1 degree so the mesh can be easily visualized in vector mode. Bill, can you look at this and tell me what I have done wrong? Thanks! Larry's Miter.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry_Sweeney Posted July 24, 2014 Author Share Posted July 24, 2014 Bill......I'm finally understanding what you are saying. Whether in CA or "real life", the way I have this flared railing shown will be a real PITA to deal with. Would you (or anyone) have a better suggestion on how these flared steps could/should be done? I appreciate your and others help and advice on this problem. Thank you to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imodel Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Larry, Simple solution would be to match Bills "corner turn" to a tread width and then start stairs from there. Does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbird1 Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Just eliminate the short perpendicular wall and start the flare at the deck wall.....typically it would come into the wall under the Deck wall cap , here at least as the deck rail would be a guard rail so 42" high and the rail on the stairs only 36" , so no need for strange joints or "levelling out" M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_Emery Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Larry, I like the design approach you've taken, there is nothing at all wrong with it. I just wanted to point out how it could be made to work better. Imodel, The wedge is a potential weakness (perhaps not much of a problem when using an epoxy glue); but it's necessary for the construction in Chief, but in real life the flat part could be machined out of a single piece of wood, leaving a single bevel. Kbird1, and others, There are a lot of ways to join the stair rail cap to the deck rail cap or the wall, but I have to say I like what Larry has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryceEngstrom Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Interesting discussion, and not even hijacked! :-) I can't help but wonder if it is still too much to ask Chief to just interpolate this configuration correctly, or at least better, wedgie or no wedgie? I played around with this a bit in Sketchup, and it seemed to handle it a bit better. In the end, I just want the model to be good enough for condocs (which in this case might only involve a decent look in my elevations at 1/4" scale), not necessarily perfection at 1" scale or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_Emery Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Hi Bryce, Initially my objective here was to show that Chief was functioning correctly, and that Larry had just missed a step in the process . If I don't set up the construction correctly, it's not going to show correctly. I do get your point; who would ever notice or care at quarter inch scale in layout. I have drawn for many years with a triangle and T-square, and am well aware of the limits of detailing by hand In the old days woodworking details were shown at 3"=1'-0" (quarter size) for clarity; but still cannot match the precision of CAD at 1"=1'-0". Now with CAD we are capable of almost infinite detail; so the inclination is to focus on detail whether we need it, or not. On the other hand, having done a lot of finish carpentry, I always appreciate it when the designer has a grasp on the reality of the method of construction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry_Sweeney Posted July 24, 2014 Author Share Posted July 24, 2014 One thing I really like about 3D modeling is that you can "build" the product/model and see that your ideas really work. I've been building and designing since 1972 and in that time I've had a "few" projects to build (especially from the "hand drawn days") that looked interesting on paper, but in practically there was no way it could be done. With CA and doing the "unusual" at times I'm not sure if CA is "telling" me it can't be done or that it can be accomplished, but CA can't do it. That's what is great about this forum. There is usually someone here that can "fill" me in on the "can and cannot" of CA. Mick.......That was my first thought, but CA would not let me make correctly. When you angle the wall coming right off the end of another wall CA makes the connection pointed instead of a square cutoff end. (attachment) I then realized I needed to have the level flat area a short distance so when I changed the wall's slope to follow the stairs the wall would be at the correct height above the treads. Some time ago I think there was a discussion on how to not have a angled wall do this at the connected spot, but I haven't looked for it get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry_Sweeney Posted July 24, 2014 Author Share Posted July 24, 2014 Larry, Simple solution would be to match Bills "corner turn" to a tread width and then start stairs from there. Does that make sense? As I mentioned in the previous thread, the point where the sloped wall started was determined by the height I wanted the top of the wall above the treads. There are other areas on this old Victorian where there are similar details and I'm trying to keep those common heights/details on this new porch addition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbird1 Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Here the Porch wall would have to be 42" to meet code (guard rail) and the stair wall would be 36" above the nosing line so they would never meet at the same height in that corner , you'd have to step the porch wall back from the edge to make it happen , not bring it forward. Perhaps you are allowed 36"porch and 36" stairs for code ? so I think the levelling out is needed. Here I'd have to add a Grip rail as well since a 2x10 cap would not be considered "grip-able" , some inspectors no longer allow 2x6 even for the top cap. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry_Sweeney Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 This home owner has some "pull". Because the house has so much "historical significance" to the area he is allowed to use the same heights as the railing is on the original porches around other areas of the house, This holds true as long as everything (architectural details) on the "new porch" matches the detailing of the original house and period it was originally built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now