2006-06-27 01:42 PM
2007-04-11 05:10 PM
2007-04-11 06:26 PM
Archi wrote:
But it makes trouble for the calculation, if the wall is positioned in minus Level from the own strorey.
2007-04-11 08:19 PM
Laura wrote:Of course this is your problem. I know that many users like to have "fake Stories for different things, and I see the need. I even have a fourth story for general notes. But even this story has a raised elevation from the story below.
We have 3 stories "below" our first level (-1. Foundation, -2. Working Story, and -3. XREF) all at the same elevation, ...
2007-04-11 08:24 PM
Jay wrote:No -- this is just the way it has been set up (keeping it simple) -- also the creation of objects on the "Working Story" at Project Zero.
Is there a reason that your "fake" stories have to be at the same level as the Foundation story?
2007-04-11 08:33 PM
PatriciaLeão wrote:This is what I would do, but only for the walls that are below 0. For our office this would be only the Garage walls that are on the perimeter of the Slab on timber floor.
... Now I'm wondering... maybe I shall rebuild it using 'current story' on my walls...
2007-04-12 02:21 AM
Laura wrote:You're essentially making AC10 to behave like AC9 because your lowest three stories are all at the same elevation. If you were to give each of those stories some height so that the FPCP wasn't forced onto those walls, you wouldn't have this issue. I'm relieved to see it's story management that's the problem here, not the FPCP.
Like I said, it's nice in theory. We would have walls disappear from plan view (allplan views), and we could only find them/select them by viewing in the 3D window. We have 3 stories "below" our first level (-1. Foundation, -2. Working Story, and -3. XREF) all at the same elevation, and the foundation walls kept placing themselves on the XREF story. Now, we approached this with every wall having the "Automatic" setting. The disappearing walls were maddening, and we certainly weren't getting the output we wanted. So finally we resorted back to "Own Story" and made "Automatic" the exception.
PatriciaLeão wrote:This is more of a concern. What is the height of your zone and how idoes the wall disurbe the calculation exactly?
I just noticed it now!!! I was having this calculation problem and I thought it was because the zones were calculated between stories and not sensitive to what delimitated them. Indeed they're not vertically sensitive. But it's not calculated just between stories also....
2007-04-12 05:44 PM
Link wrote:No -- this was only one example, and perhaps a bad example at that. We would have walls disappear from plan view (
You're essentially making AC10 to behave like AC9 because your lowest three stories are all at the same elevation. If you were to give each of those stories some height so that the FPCP wasn't forced onto those walls, you wouldn't have this issue. I'm relieved to see it's story management that's the problem here, not the FPCP.
2007-04-13 11:48 AM
Jay wrote:
Your model may be different, and you may have many walls that are "below" current story.
Jay wrote:
If this is a bug with the zone calculation, is it reported?
Link wrote:
What is the height of your zone and how idoes the wall disurbe the calculation exactly?
2007-04-19 06:13 PM
Jay wrote:Sorry for the delay. Briefly, yes, Automatic is off. Some disorganized comments:
So James, are you still "own story" vs. automatic for most walls?
2007-04-19 10:21 PM
James wrote:Yes -- this has been our experience -- LJY.
Anything 'Automatic' requires trust on the part of the user, and I don't trust the current implementation. 'Automatic' can sometimes be just a nice word for 'loss of user control'. Depends what you like.