Raise whole plan up 97 feet to match survey data

[GeneDavis]

I did an asbuilt plan and did the room addition both with zero as the subfloor elevation.  Now come the surveyor with about 100 points of terrain data on a .dwg which I have imported, and the subfloor is not zero but is 96.32'.  And all the points are in decimal feet to two places, all hundred and something of them.

 

I've a choice.  I can either do the math and convert all the terrain data points to plus or minus the few feet from the zero subfloor I have, or I can make the floor 96.32 and type in point by point, given the numbers on the .dwg plan.

 

But how can you elevate every element of a 3D Chief model?  Edit area does not work.  Simple box selection using a simple test plan moved the roof up 96.32 feet but left the floor at zero, so I have a mini-tower.

 

 

[joey_martin]

Try just double clicking on the terrain perimeter to open the default and set from there and see what happens. 

 

Tranforms/replicate may work as well

[Alaskan_Son]

As Joey alluded to...

 

Terrain Specification>General>Building Pad>Subfloor Height Above Terrain

 

That's exactly what the setting is for.  It controls how the first floor sub-floor (absolute zero) is set in reference to the terrain elevation data (sea level).

[GeneDavis]

See the image attached.  The test 4-wall house with auto roof had its floor at zero.  I edited the floor elevation in plan view to 96'-3 7/16" to match the survey data.

 

That moved the floor with its 4 walls up to where you see it, but the roof did not move.  I selected the roof planes in this 3D view and moved them up the same distance the house got moved.

 

Then I built terrain, which comes in at zero as shown.  Now I gotta move the terrain.

 

Right?

[Alaskan_Son]

6 minutes ago, GeneDavis said:

See the image attached.  The test 4-wall house with auto roof had its floor at zero.  I edited the floor elevation in plan view to 96'-3 7/16" to match the survey data.

 

That moved the floor with its 4 walls up to where you see it, but the roof did not move.  I selected the roof planes in this 3D view and moved them up the same distance the house got moved.

 

Then I built terrain, which comes in at zero as shown.  Now I gotta move the terrain.

 

Right?

No no no.  Leave everything alone.  You shouldn’t have changed the floor height or moved the roof.  The only single change you had to make is the one I showed above.

[GeneDavis]

You only showed me a blank dialog box with your redline highlight around the building pad section which has a data input box for user to set subfloor above terrain, and two checkboxes, one called "automatic" the other called "flatten pad" 

[Alaskan_Son]

1 hour ago, GeneDavis said:

You only showed me a blank dialog box with your redline highlight around the building pad section which has a data input box for user to set subfloor above terrain, and two checkboxes, one called "automatic" the other called "flatten pad" 

 

I wasn't presuming to tell you the exact numbers to enter.  I was showing and telling you where the setting is that you new to change.  It was in the post.  The setting you need to change is Subfloor Height Above Terrain.  The behavior is right there in the name of the setting too.  How high do you want your subfloor (absolute zero) above the terrain zero (sea level)?  In your case you probably want it at 97'.  You can read more about it by clicking on the Help button when you're in that dialog.

[GeneDavis]

I've played with this little one room schoolhouse and to no avail.  I need the subfloor at absolute elevation (per the surveyor) of 96 feet and change, and the terrain 1'3" below that.

 

Nothing I do with terrain, changes the house floor from zero.  What's the secret?

[javatom]

Set your plan up to be at floor elevation of zero.  There is rarely an exception to this.  Build the terrain based on the elevations data and then move the entire elevation to where it should be.  Pretend that this survey showed a lot in the mountains and the elevation is 5000'  You would not change your floor plan the have a floor level of 5000'.  The elevation data from the survey is just to get the slope right.

[Alaskan_Son]

34 minutes ago, GeneDavis said:

I've played with this little one room schoolhouse and to no avail.  I need the subfloor at absolute elevation (per the surveyor) of 96 feet and change, and the terrain 1'3" below that.

 

Nothing I do with terrain, changes the house floor from zero.  What's the secret?

 

You don't change the house floor from zero.  You leave it at absolute zero.  You simply change where the house floor is with relation to the terrain by adjusting the setting I already mentioned.  

[SHCanada2]

i would try:

0. leaving main floor at 0

1. entering all the terrain points

2. determine the distance from the subfloor to the terain at a specific point adjacent to the house

3. adjust the "subfloor height above terrain" to match

 

so for instance if the terrain is at 97' ASL at the front of the house and 95' ASL at the back of the house

and you want the subfloor to be 3' above the front of the house, the value would be 100'

 

Below are two terrain regions left at 97', right at 95', and  "subfloor height above terrain" at 100'

 

 

but i've never found a way to autostorey pole it correctly. if you set the grade level marker in the defaults to -100 ft and then remove it from the storey pole dimension, it will show correctly... just requires the manual work, but maybe others have found a way.

 

 

 

[GeneDavis]

Thanks to everyone who put up with my confused state.  It is clear to me now how it works.

 

Quite simply, there is "house zero" which is commonly main floor subfloor top, and it relates up or down to terrain by that setting you either let go auto or assign, the setting being the house zero elevation above (or below) the terrain, whether your are building up in Crested Butte CO at 10,750 feet or in Plaquemine Parish LA at 3 feet.  And the point in the house footprint that is that offset relative to terrain is its center, however Chief finds it.  In a simple rectangle it's easy to see how it works.

 

I've not yet had to get very specific about terrain in Chief house models because my builder clients know how to make things all work, but this latest little challenge involves notching an addition into a hillside and having two walls of the addition function as retaining walls for the natural bank it's notched into.  And those wall heights are determined by the existing terrain.

 

Pics from my self-instructional (with all your advice) are attached.  I used elevation numbers for the terrain that are sort of in line with what I have on this 7-acre lakefront lot, and specified flat pad for house, so you can see how Chief warped the terrain up to the downhill side so as to achieve the flat house pad.  In the cross section if you look close you can see how the ski slope line of the terrain intersects the middle of the house at subfloor, or "house zero."  It is the skilled user's job to set that manually when properly siting a building.

 

I've not yet had the job to properly site a new design on a big lot with not-flat terrain and views and multiple choices for siting, but am now prepared to do it if needed. 

 

 

[glennw]

Gene,

Just to complicate things a little.

There are at least 3 ways to define the relativity of these heights (model/terrain) that I know of.

1. Use real world heights for both the model and terrain heights - what you originally asked for.

2. Use model heights based on zero and use real world heights for the terrain - what you ended up doing.

3. Use model heights based on zero and use terrain heights plus/minus from that.

I would guess that 99.9% use method 2 - this is the standard way that Chief works and probably the most practical.

In all the time I have been using Chief I have used method 1 maybe two times (at the clients request).

I don't ever remember using method 3, but I am aware some users like it.

 

You are probably better off leaving Flatten Pad unchecked and using other terrain elevation data (like Elevation regions) for which you will have more control.

[glennw]

Why hit and run with a down vote.

The least you can do is give a reason so that we might all learn something.

 

[SHCanada2]

1 hour ago, glennw said:

1. Use real world heights for both the model and terrain heights - what you originally asked for.

 

1 hour ago, glennw said:

In all the time I have been using Chief I have used method 1 maybe two times (at the clients request).

 

curious, how would the client even know.

 

It is fairly typical around here to have storey pole elevations in Metres above sea level, but that can be accomplished even if one does 2.

 

..maybe there is a downvote bot...as I cannot possibly see a reason to downvote your assessment

[Alaskan_Son]

1 hour ago, glennw said:

Why hit and run with a down vote.

There are a lot of valid reasons to do so.  One of which is that a person may not have the time, inclination, or even the verbiage which which to start an argument.  Another might be that a person wants to show that they found a post unhelpful but didn't want to drag it through the mud.  In this particular instance though, I'll just put it all out there for you.  It was a little of everything.  Not only did I know what I wanted to say might come across a bit degrading and I didn't want or have time to get into an ensuing argument/back and forth, but I also didn't really have all the words to say what I felt needed to be said if I was going to post a response.  Since you really want to know though, I'll acquiesce and take some time to give you my feedback:

 

I down-voted it because I felt like it only further serves to confuse people and opens up doors to bad practices for no great reason.  You said it in the post yourself when you said:

 

2 hours ago, glennw said:

Just to complicate things...

 

...and then that's exactly what you did. 

 

It already took us (mostly me) way longer than it should have to finally get Gene to see the correct and proper way of achieving the desired end results.  It finally clicked though and I feel like all you did with the majority of your post was throw mud back into the water--if not for Gene then for other users who might be reading along.  The absolute last things someone should be doing in my opinion is presenting faulty and incorrect "methods" as potential options when there's already clearly a fundamental misunderstanding.  In particular, I think you're bringing validity to something almost no one should be doing in a thread where it was truly unhelpful to the discussion at hand.  Others users have the same hangups Gene does and by presenting those options in a thread like this, I think all you're really doing is opening the doors to further confusion.  To be specific:

 

2 hours ago, glennw said:

1. Use real world heights for both the model and terrain heights - what you originally asked for.  Nobody should really be doing this ever.  Its not how the program was designed to work and will cause all sorts of unintended and unexpected problems.  It shouldn't be presented as one of several valid methods.  A workaround for extremely marginal use cases maybe, but certainly shouldn't be mentioned in a thread where there was already so much confusion already.

2. Use model heights based on zero and use real world heights for the terrain - what you ended up doing.  Again, you're presenting it like its one of several valid methods that Gene just happened to select.  This is THE appropriate method for what Gene was doing.

3. Use model heights based on zero and use terrain heights plus/minus from that.  Yes, of course a person could do this.  Gene already stated that he knew this was something he could do.  Mentioning it again is just re-validating and re-surfacing a thought process that I feel keeps people from understanding how the program is designed to function in the first place.  There's no good reason a person should be importing real world data and then changing those data points. 

 

Anyway, that's why I found your post unhelpful and marked it as such.

 

By the way, for what its worth, I believe that may actually be the only time I have ever down voted one of your posts Glenn.  I usually respect and agree with most of what you say.  That probably added to my hesitancy to say something that I knew might come across as demeaning.

[GeneDavis]

The plan I'm doing is an addition to a 2011 build.  The architect's plans for the as-built use absolute elevations with the main floor at 993 feet ASL.

 

 

[glennw]

I think I am going to let my post stand as is, apart from 2 points I want to clarify.

 

On 11/27/2022 at 10:14 AM, SHCanada2 said:

curious, how would the client even know.

Because they were Chief users.

 

23 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

There's no good reason a person should be importing real world data and then changing those data points. 

Who said anything about importing and changing real world data for method 3?

I certainly didn't say that, nor didn't even imply it - that is your assumption.

All the cases I have seen using the plus/minus method, the user has entered the elevation data with plus/minus values - they haven't imported and edited real world data.

Method 3 is mainly used when the user doesn't have a level survey but rather measures existing site heights plus/minus from, say, an existing structure - usually the floor level of an existing building.

Not at all an "incorrect method" or "bad practice" but rather a legitimate method that users should be aware of.

[Alaskan_Son]

27 minutes ago, glennw said:

Who said anything about importing and changing real world data for method 3?

I certainly didn't say that, nor didn't even imply it - that is your assumption.

C’mom Glenn, you must know you’re taking things out of context, and in my opinion you’re just proving my points.  The discussion up until you complicated matters was clearly about adjusting the model to account for real world elevation data.  Period.