Siding Profile

[home_design]

Hi. 

is there a way to add a profile to siding so in a cross section it would show the actual profile of the siding and not just a line at 1/2" from the sheeting

 

Thanks!

[rlackore]

Not easily. IOW, you can't accomplish this through the Wall Specification dialog box. There may be a method using molding polylines, or other means.

[DavidJPotter]

If you want something with zero dimensions, just leave it out. Nothing in the real, physical world has a thickness of zero (nothing). To be able to perceive something it has to have some mass otherwise it is invisible altogether. I really do not see this as a "problem" or bug.

 

DJP

[johnny]

I've played around with doing this, and had some good success using the molding poly - but its not "quick".  I think CA should allow us to set profiles for wall layers.

[Joe_Carrick]

This is something that would almost never be done in small scale sections.  It might be shown in larger scale details (shingles for example) which could be easily done by drawing a single wedge shape (maybe even making a CAD Block out of it and adding it to the Library for future use) and using the "Multi-Copy" tool. 

 

As far as using profiles for wall layers, IMO that's a waste of programming time.

[johnny]

As far as using profiles for wall layers, IMO that's a waste of programming time.

 

Seeing the difference between a model with with "flat" surfaces for siding/roofing vs a model with profile lines to emulate the textures provides a fairly substantial visual impact. 

[Joe_Carrick]

Johnny,

 

As I said, you can do it with a CAD Block and the Multi-CopyTool.  For the amount of times you need to do that in a section or detail (probably at a scale of 1/2" = 1' or larger) it's not a big deal.  I can assure you that in Chief the programming would be more work than it would be worth.

 

Maybe if Chief ever gets to the point of providing 2D line styles it would be easier.  IAE, it's easy enough to do with the above method and CA's prioritizing system isn't going to bring this to the front burner.

[rlackore]

Seeing the difference between a model with with "flat" surfaces for siding/roofing vs a model with profile lines to emulate the textures provides a fairly substantial visual impact. 

 

It sounds like you're talking about raytraces. If so, a decent solution that doesn't involve actual profiles would be if Chief implemented displacement maps in the material definition.

[Joe_Carrick]

Here's a quick example:  I didn't bother to hatch the plywood underlayment or put in the wall insulation - but you get the idea

[johnny]

It sounds like you're talking about raytraces. If so, a decent solution that doesn't involve actual profiles would be if Chief implemented displacement maps in the material definition.

 

Yes, from Raytrace to even just the elevations (and in-between).  I do a lot of "weaved" corners and its actually a fairly big hassle currently in Chief to modify everything to display correctly.

 

The details, I agree aren't as big a deal....but I do generally think a Chief model should strive to be "real world" accurate at some point.  They seem to be moving in the right direction, but I dont view this issue as a waste of time.

[johnny]

Here's a quick example:  I didn't bother to hatch the plywood underlayment or put in the wall insulation - but you get the idea

 

I think what we are saying is slightly different, and I agree if it was just for this type of use (as the OP mentioned), it may not be a good use of programming time.  However, I personally would love to see profile wall options for various other reasons.

[Joe_Carrick]

Johnny,

 

I understand what you want is a 3D Texture that will show shadows in a Ray Trace.  That's going to require a different approach for almost every conceivable situation.

 

Board and Batt

Shingles

Scalloped Shingles

Lap Siding

Mission Tile Roofing

etc.

 

I've done some of these with different techniques (including moldings, 3D moldings, symbols, etc).  The more complex the material - the more work it takes.

[rlackore]

Johnny,

 

I understand what you want is a 3D Texture that will show shadows in a Ray Trace.  That's going to require a different approach for almost every conceivable situation.

 

Board and Batt

Shingles

Scalloped Shingles

Lap Siding

Mission Tile Roofing

etc.

 

I've done some of these with different techniques (including moldings, 3D moldings, symbols, etc).  The more complex the material - the more work it takes.

 

Or, displacement maps. No extra geometry needed, just some time and attention to producing a quality height map for the material definition.

[johnny]

I've tried the mapping but I dont get the edges. You get the straight on surface with undulation but it doesn't read correctly around the corner. Perhaps I am doing something wrong. Here is an example:

[mattyt12]

Or, displacement maps. No extra geometry needed, just some time and attention to producing a quality height map for the material definition.

I agree that this is the best method, just comes down to how far chief want to develop their raytracing engine. IMO this would just be a bonus and if you want such detailed raytraces without spending hours modelling there is plenty of dedicated render engines out there that do this well already

 

I've tried the mapping but I dont get the edges. You get the straight on surface with undulation but it doesn't read correctly around the corner. Perhaps I am doing something wrong. Here is an example:

The bump mapping in chief only really works well if used sparingly to generate a slightly rough surface rather than smooth

[rlackore]

Johnny,

 

Bump mapping simulates depth by playing with the lighting calculations. Displacement mapping actually perturbs the underlying surface geometry so you get much greater depth and accuracy in the rendering. However, displacement mapping is very costly compared to bump mapping - much more computational horsepower is required.