• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Keith_K

  1. Hi Mick. Thanks for your response. I have never ever noticed (or used) that default top option on the wall dialogue and I don't know what happened with those weird room heights but I used the default top option and corrected the room heights. The central wall was intended to be a firewall, yes. While I would have preferred the roof overhang to be almost flush with the walls I extended it slightly and managed to get this... ....which also gave me this... No matter what I tried I could not persuade the software to let me get the central wall to end flush with the two end walls so I gave up the battle of wills and just left it as it was. I then drew a small porch at the right hand front door and placed the carports further away from the residential buildings before popping up to the first floor and doing an auto roof for, I thought, just that floor. It did it for both the first and the ground floor - something I didn't expect as I thought each floor was an entity on it's own - and, among a couple of other things like extensive overhangs and a far too short chimney which I adjusted accordingly the auto roof also took away my firewall gave me a little replacement present instead... I am unable to get rid of those unwanted things and I have given up on the firewall! Once I have managed to rid myself of those strange walls I will be very happy with the general look of this plan and will continue with the interiors. Then, when it comes to dragging this plan across to the garage plan where it is intended to be I will doing so with bated breath and a fervent hope that my computer doesn't implode.
  2. Being me you'll probably immediately think "So what's new?", but bear with me if you will. I drew a double car port with a central dividing parapet wall, put corner pillars in and stuck the roofs on. It was perfect. Even if I say so myself. Then, in my infinite wisdom, I decided that I would extend the carports to provide a storage room at the back and that's when the strangeness began. In 2D it all looked good but when I did a full perspective 3D the walls which make up the storage rooms have become parapet walls the same height as the central dividing wall. I want the roofs to go from front to back with no break or parapet at the back end "No probs" saith I, and proceeded to try and drag them down to the correct level only to find that when I do that nothing whatsoever happens to the storage walls. The dragging affects the walls of the two residential buildings instead! At one stage of my futile attempts the dragging also sent the guttering of the carports like a black line right through the residential buildings and way down to the bottom of my screen. I have to say that my software has been behaving in slightly odd ways over the past few days making me wonder whether it is about to crash on me. Your thoughts please. Oaklands cottages 22.06.15.plan I thank you.
  3. Bugger! I didn't mean to vote your post down, Mick. I was aiming for the UP button because I agree with you that I should abandon the current plan. Maybe a moderator can reverse it because I don't seem to be able to. And thanks for the tip on getting the previous plan back, Jo-Ann. I think that when one gets to the stage of panic that I reached yesterday the brain goes into hibernation and no further logical thoughts can be made. I'll open both plans in a split screen and without going anywhere near the foundations or anything else other than changing the floor finish I'll go through the plan room by room, window by window, wall by wall and dimension by dimension to try and catch up with all the changes I have made. Then maybe I can progress the plan without making any further cock-ups. Pray for me, ladies.
  4. Thanks for the stair tip Mick. I'll have a look at it tomorrow as I am about to go to bed. I didn't know that you had to change the settings for handrail heights etc. I thought that the clever software would do it. How on earth can I have two foundations? The software doesn't allow it as far as I know. Admittedly I deleted the previous foundation when I was trying to sort everything else out and then used the "build foundation" wotsit to redo it thereafter I dragged the foundations walls to align with the ground floor walls. Did some of the old foundation stay behind when I deleted? Yes, I am still on 2014. Achieving the cost of upgrading is still eluding me I'm afraid. And it can only get worse.
  5. Hi Jo-Ann. Yes that was all it took but then the muck hit the fan. I have spent all yesterday afternoon and most of this morning correcting things so that the DBXs for each room was the same as those on the rest of the floor because adding the floor finish made something go completely wrong and the specs on most of the rooms were totally different to the floor default settings. It was is if the software went on some sort of damage vendetta. I've done the best I can to make it right. So then I do a 3D doll house view of the ground floor and... I don't what the hell is going on with that section. It was perfectly OK before I had to fiddle. It is supposed to be an alcove in which an outdoor display cage site. For some reason too the door on the right of the alcove is breaking my foundation wall (and don't get me started on the foundations as I've spent most of the afternoon trying to make them right because they too seem to have been affected by the change made to the floor). This project isn't the easiest (though it should be because the building exists. My problem might lie in the fact that I am trying to replicate the old hand drawn plans which is made all the more difficult because the structure was made into what it is over a period of years starting with the little shop in 1972 then with the workshops at the back in 1977 and then the centre part which is currently a car showroom with offices above was added in 1983 to make one whole building. The shop, the showroom part and the workshops actually all have different ceiling heights but I think I'll become mental if I try and replicate them That said the wasted time of the last two days have left me feeling extremely despondent so I'm going to take myself off for a beer and hope that I feel better about this project again tomorrow.. Mick, if you look at the handrails on the image I sent yesterday you will see that there is a lovely curve joining the right hand rails. That is what I was hoping would happen on the left as well. I'll attach a copy of the plan as it stands when I saved and closed it a few minutes ago. Some changes will be seen. I don't have the plan that you guys are looking at because I did a "save as" and deleted all the old copies so I can't look and see what has changed with that alcove thing and the door. Oaklands - proposed development 22.06.15.plan
  6. Thanks guy and gal. Because it was the weekend I didn't check for any further comments but I did spend 5½ hours yesterday afternoon trying to sort out the staircase. I zoomed in really close and found many of the wrongs which you mention such as the width of the openings which were a few mm out in all cases and after making the necessary adjustments and found too that in the staircase DBX that the top height of the staircase/s was also incorrect. In the "Advanced Options" section of the DBX some things are selected by default such as "automatic heights". The default height with that option selected was incorrect and when I unselected it and changed the top height to the 2499 mm that it should be the staircase/s worked and the materials changed to what I had selected them to be. However the railing transition (in a darker wood in the attachment for ease of viewing) only worked on one side. The part where the staircase joins the cantilevered floor on the left side also looks a wee bit strange. But you know what? I'm not really going to bother too much about it because I can't spend so much time on just one aspect of the plan when I have so much else to do on it. Mick, that single staircase you mention didn't have the materials chosen by me. They are the default materials which come up when you draw a staircase and I can't find anywhere that you can set defaults for staircases. I wish there was because in the advanced I've mentioned in the paragraph above you are unable to turn off the fixed default for "Automatic Treads" and therefore are unable to adjust the tread depth. The floor finishes have now been sorted too. I am unable to understand why I would have set the default to 0 mm. But ther seems to be a lot of things that I don't understand any more so it's par for the course. Thanks again for your input.
  7. It was late and I was tired. Please note that the out of alignment walls on the bottom right (currently joined by an invisible wall) gets corrected when the main building is eventually angled. Oaklands - proposed development 02.06.15.plan
  8. Jo-Ann, I right clock on the room>open object>structure>materials>floor covering. The way I've always done it. This is only happening in the 3D dollhouse perspective as per the first line of my opening post. If I go to the plan and click on the room/s (as above) the correct selected floor covering is shown on the room specs. If, however, I try and correct it while in 3D view it all changes to Oatmeal Tile or Natural Oak Plank as per the image and the staircase doesn't change at all. It's a puzzlement. Mick, this plan is the least complicated of them all because I am working with an existing structure so no fancy insulated and brick lined walls are involved.
  9. 3D rendering I hope that someone will be able to tell me why. I recently started working on the "back" section of my plan and the three back sections involved still had concrete floors in the room spec. The "front" sections all had Oatmeal Tile as their flooring. This afternoon I specified that the floors should be Natural Oak Plank. Fine. It changed them but at the same time all the floors bar one in the £front" section of the plan changed from Oatmeal Tile to Natural Oak Plank. If I try and change them back to Oatmeal Tile then the flooring in the "back" section of the plan changes as well. There is also one section of a staircase that refused to change the materials to match the rest of the staircase. I have never experienced this phenomenon before and am at a loss to understand it. I'm sure it can't be my video card as a better grade of card was only installed on my computer a few months back. Any ideas? Please?
  10. Yes, it does. Thank you! Oh! The joy of having a second brain and pair of eyes! My septuagenarian grey matter interpreted that little box to mean that the floor would sit on top of the stem wall. I will have to teach it to recognise that "at" and "on" have entirely different meanings.
  11. Yo Mick! The method I used previously to get the stem wall to pop above ground level was probably by sheer accident given that I was just starting to use the software. I’ll go back to that plan and see whether I can figure out what I did but the pony wall I have now used will suffice for the purpose. When I was having the problem yonks ago with the floor/stem wall relationship Support gave me suggestions of how to correct it. I printed them off and it’s just a case of finding where I have put them. You speak in tongues though when you talk about “hanging walls” because the specification images you use don’t look anything like the one that I have on Pro 2014 (see attachments). Did you use a newer version than mine to fiddle? Using the “floor supplied by the foundation room below” option does lift the floor so that it is level with the top of the stem wall but everything else on the specification sheet is then greyed out and can’t be changed. The reason for the shop (now a toilet block with a store room and outdoor storage area) are not at an angle yet is because I want to do the floor layouts and everything first and need to be able to see correct dimensions. If you remember from the previous topic once the angle is done it isn’t possible to use the dimension tools as they don’t like things being cock-eyed. I will also save the current right angled drawing to show the gas station owners And maybe even local building control) what the dimensions are because none will show properly on the drawings once the angling has been done Hardcore is the name given in this part of the world to the infill of materials such as broken bricks, stone or concrete, which are hard and do not readily absorb water or deteriorate. This hardcore is spread over the site within the external walls of the building to such thickness as required to raise the finished surface of the site concrete. The hardcore is spread until it is roughly level and rammed until it forms a compact bed for the oversite concrete. This hardcore bed is usually from 100 to 300 mm thick and is overlaid with a DP membrane before the concrete floor is poured. If the materials of the hardcore are hard and irregular in shape they will not be a ready path for moisture to rise by capillarity.
  12. Thanks Mick. I have done the pony wall as you suggested. Why I as getting my knackers in a knot was that I had achieved the same effect using the stem wall in the very first plan somewhat complicated learning curve I ever did when I bought HD Pro 2013 (see attachment) and I was trying the do the same but couldn't remember how I did it. The floors are 300mm made up of a layer of concrete and a layer of compressed hardcore. I have changed the setting to reflect that (see attachment) but I am still unable to get the floor to sit level with the top of the stem wall and not on top of it. Here again I have managed this before but have forgotten how. The foundations are now perfect.
  13. Quite honestly when working with HD I think that my brain is forgetting more than I am learning. On my current project which is the development of an existing gas station to (a) improve the existing forecourt and shop and ( convert the exiting workshops into housing units. As you will see from the bit of the drawing I have attached there are a few courses of brick below the rendered rest of the exterior walls. None of the exterior walls will be demolished so I need to show the exposed brick on the elevations of the new plans. When it comes to the shop section which is attached to the main block of other buildings (and will eventually sit at an angle to the main block once I have done all the rooms and stuff in the main block) there is also a course of exposed brick. In my new drawings I have used siding as the material for the exterior wall in the wall specs for the shop frontage because I thought that this would be the easiest and then I tried to make the brick courses using the wallcovering wotsit on the wall specifications. I purposely used a different brick to that specified for the stem walls so that any change would be obvious. This works to an extent but the bricks "bleed" into the siding. I have fiddled with the foundations. I have tried raising the stem wall. I have tried making the floor sit flush with the stem wall not on top of it (and this is where my greatest memory lapse became apparent) and I now need a beer. I have just spent three hours trying various things to get this right and I am numb from the top of my head to my shoulders, including my brain. This numbness might, as is often the case, made me ramble unintelligently so that no one really understands what I am trying to do but for the sake of my sanity I hope I have expressed myself properly. What must I do the achieve this? Oaklands - proposed development 22.05.15.plan
  14. Wheeee! I'm hoping that it's just an optical illusion that makes the angled units seem to be non-rectangular. A small problem remains in that some of the dimensions are wrong and can't be corrected. It would seem that if walls are drawn at an angle the interior dimension tool doesn't work, either to take a new measurement or to drag the end point to where it should be on the interior wall, I've sort of managed with the point to point dimension tool but it isn't all that accurate.
  15. Marked as solved by moi?? Bloody hell! I seem to do strange things when I am on here and don't realise that I am the culprit. There must be a malign influence about. The issue in question has now been fixed. I really don't understand why CA charges so much when you want to upgrade. Customers have already paid for their software and one would think, possibly quite naively, that when they improve or add features to something that exists already those who already own the software would just be charged for any improvements and additions to what already exists, not all over again for the whole thing. But I suppose that having a good product and a "captive" audience allows companies to ignore the fact that not all of their customers have unlimited funds which allows them to pay over and over again for virtually the same thing. I am now about to embark on trying to fix my plans in accordance with your suggestions so if you hear a loud wailing noise...
  16. Hahahaha. It would seem that my p.s. was totally WRONG! I'll try again. p.s. You stop the forum messing with your ( B ) by using (i) (ii) (iii) etc.
  17. My word! Aren't you just such a clever bloke? Funnily enough at some point during a very restless and more-awake-than-asleep night I thought of doing something similar by starting with one of the buildings other then the shop. But you beat me to it. Thank you. As you say, I am unable to open your plan and cannot afford to upgrade from my 2014 software but I have printed your instructions and let you know how I get on. Provided the effort doesn't kill me. p.s. You stop the forum messing with your ( B ) by using a lower case letter - ( p.p.s. How very DARE you mark my topic as answered before I even had a chance to read your response? Eh? Memo to self - You must learn to control your smiley icon wotsits fetish
  18. They are all "one" building" Mick and the shop is 90º to the road, I promise. You'll see on the PDF. Ignore the perimeter boundaries (if that is possible) as I am still fiddling with them and the bigger one is more accurate. Well according to the distances I get off Google maps anyway. As you will see on the original drawings no site dimensions are given on the site plans. And no, the left hand boundary isn't straight. There is a wiggly curve to it and, on one of the drawings, the corner of a building has been drawn in such a way that it seems to actually touch the boundary. Just to clarify the sequence of the development. In the beginning, when God created the garage, there was a small house on the site, two double petrol pumps on a forecourt and a small toilet block. Then the shop was built. After that the original workshop was built behind the house. Then the house was demolished and the showroom/workshop was built between and linked to the shop and the original workshop. And that is where the crap seems to have hit the fan as far as the drawings are concerned. I suppose, in theory, I should have started my drawing with the original workshop but given that there aren't any proper dimensions (i.e. setbacks etc.) on the drawings it would be like sucking stuff out of my thumb. Which is why I started with the shop. Oaklands Shop plan.pdf Oaklands first workshop.pdf Oaklands Showroom & workshop extension.pdf
  19. Guys, I don't know whether I am going to make much sense because my brain has been fried. I know the buildings that I am working on at the moment extremely well as I used to work there and I was puzzled as to why, in the attachment of the original drawing in my first post, the small shop area was drawn at an angle. Eventually, after struggling to make sense of the drawings the local planning department had e-mailed to me by zooming in and out, backwards and forwards, I eventually stuck the PDF documents onto a memory stick and had them printed. Thereafter I put all the drawings into the submission date sequence on which the site had been developed over the years, went onto Google maps and took an aerial screenshot of the site and found that: 1. The shop was built first and it is most definitely at 90º to the road boundary. 2. The workshop area marked (A) on the attachment below was built next and it was this building that was placed at an angle. The angle on the printed PDF seems to be 9.5° and not 9º as I originally measured. This is clearly visible on the aerial photo. 3. The third stage of development was the showroom and additional workshop area with a small toilet block linking to the existing shop marked ( on the attachment below. Prior to this discovery I tried to angle the shop and made one right royal cock-up after the other with the walls ending up all jagged instead of straight. If someone has the time please could you look at the attached plans (one is the existing layout and the other the intended, both partially worked on until this conundrum threw a spanner into the works) and try and give me some guidance as to how I might get this darn thing right. It would be much appreciated as I seem to be spending such a lot of time chasing windmills and getting absolutely nowhere. Thank you. Petrol station - existing floor plan 18.05.15.plan Petrol station with pumps 09.05.15.plan
  20. Thank you, ma'am. I'll give that a go.
  21. I am working off very old plans trying to recreate them so that proposed new developments can be made. There is a wall which butts against another at an angle of 9º. I know that I can drag the wall to form the angle but how and where can I ensure that the angle at the point of butting is an accurate 9º? I've looked in the help data base without success. This might be because, as is often the case, I am using the wrong terminology.
  22. Thank you. I found most of what I was looking for in the links above. However, when I try and import the .skp file I get an error message. I have tried the help data base but I can't seem to find a solution that will allow the import and the adding to my library.
  23. Could some please direct me to somewhere where I could find shopfittings suitable for a large petrol (gas) station shop including refrigeration. This should preferable be very easy to download and use from my library for I am very much a simpleton in matter of downloading and adapting technical things. Thanks in advance.
  24. Thank you both. It was the "show sheet" icon. You know, I stared and stared at those ruddy icons until I was blue in the face to see if any of them was "lit" and never saw it. Maybe they should turn bright yellow when clicked upon. Or maybe my eyes grow dim.