Beiträge von Thorvald

Hi. Hmm in general I don't like the view with edges off. It doesn't look good and it doesn't look correct.

Maybe I could play with light settings in stead.

Hi.

Does anyone know a good, cheap or free software to calculate the strength and stiffness of truss constructions in wood (or in steel and combinations for that matter)??

For the moment I am trying with MATruss 1.3 trial, but I am not sure yet, if it can calculate with material properties such as for wood.

I have written below to Dietrichs more than one week ago, but I didn't get an answer yet:

Of course the new DC-Calcs, sound very interesting - but is it useful? And how much does it cost? Would it be useful for me to have - for some of the following purposes:

- DC-Calcs, reads a model from Dietrichs, t.ex. a all wooden building.
- Now I can more or less directly calculate wooden parts in this building, posts in walls, beams etc. in DC-Calcs
- Can I calculate roof trusses and girder beams, including the nail plates - and then get size of nail plates, nails to be used etc.?
- Can I calculate a complete wall, and in this one calculation get the results for posts, beams, top sills etc.
- Can I calculate a point supported wall - made after the same princips as a girder beam or roof truss - or even made after the princip that the top and bottom sills and t.ex. plywood cover creates the "beam"?
- Can I calculate self-designed I- and box beams?
- Back to structures made after the princip of roof trusses and girder beams: Can DC-Calc calculate pressure nail plates, such as Eleco? See homepage here and software modules.
- If the answer to some of above questions are "no" - would it then be possible to use some interaction between Eleco's software modules, t.ex. TrussCon, to import results from here directly into Dietrichs?

All right, that was not the result that I wanted... When switching to black background the edge lines becomes white and that does not look correct. I was hoping it was possible to change to some grey or light grey background. Because I have a house with white render at facade and it is a bit diffcult to see the facade now.

Hi.

Is it possible to change the background color in OpenGL (version 7)? Now it is white.

Hi.

Is it in version 7 / 8, possible to delete all assisting geometry in a position (in wall designs, ceilings etc. etc.) from one place??

What videos?

Because I am not sitting on the money. If I was, i would upgrade the same day as the new version is released (if I was sitting on a lot of money... ). And unfortunately we did not make an support and upgrade contract from the beginning. But I will have a look at Dietrichs homepage.

Der_Planer: I does not have version 8, and since feature 1-2-8 i optional it isn't sure that I would get that feature, even if I got version 8. So I cannot know what this feature is.

Jason: Truss module? As in roof trusses, girder beams etc.? But these can be made in wall design - but it seems that this truss module have more features than wall design?

I was trying in material database to make a steel plate that is not rectangular (it is supposed to look like a quater circle). To make it easy to input in wall design, I choose "panel" as object type. But when I input it in the wall the piece becomes rectangular. If I choose profiled beam as object type, it cannot be orientated in the correct way in the wall (in the plane of the wall) - and I will have to rotate it in D-cam to get it into position. Isn't there an easier way? Why does it not work with "panel"?

Yeah - I see. Of course Dietrichs is not "old fashioned" in general - it is one of the best 3D software on the market. One way that may be possible, could be to make it possible to rotate wall volumes in D-Cam? And / or maybe to make a type of wall that does not connect to each other (is already possible), and does not connect to roof and ceilings.

Good morning! Hope you had a nice Easter. There is one thing that I am beginning to miss in Dietrich - the possibility to make angled walls. Here Dietrichs is a bit old fashioned, since walls are vertical and that's it - but in modern architecture you can find angled walls, columns etc. Of course Dietrichs is mainly meant to be for wooden buildings - but of course the program can be used for anything. Markus have had the pleasure to see one of my engineering works of art where I have combined wood elements, steel frames, steel beams, concrete walls, concrete hollow core slabs, railings with glass, tension rods... in one house.

The angled glass facade you see at attached concrete building is made by making the glass facade vertical and then rotate it in D-cam. When it comes to this glass facade it is ok that it is not completely accurate, because another supplier is going to deliver it. But it is a good example.

Now I am going to make tension rods behind this glass facade for the sake of stability. To make an accurate model of this - because these tension rods will be fastened to the concrete elements - it would have been nice to be able to work with angled walls in ground-plan. But for now I will probably have to do this in the same way as the glass facade.

So this could be a point for the wish list.

So - to extend Joachim's answer a little: When you make t.ex. wall volumes and you don't care what textureset they get, standard is chosen automatically. But in material database you will normally want to assign a texture (or color) to your materials. So if you want "gray" you can just assign the color gray to your material.

I have maybe a situation that is a little similar. For making a roof construction with roof trusses, I made walls for the roof trusses. Then I wanted to make a walkway with OSB, but I found that the OSB layers was interrupted by the "walls" (roof trusses). Then first I tried to go to ground plan and in properties of these walls to un-check the core slice (= kernlage), but that was not the solution. Then I went to the ceiling area and here I made the OSB layers to be core slices together with the wood layer - that worked! Untill now I didn't know that you could have more than one core slice and that core slice should be only slice 0...

This message I also get frequently. I just change the filename extension from .new to .ini. It's a bit strange that it happens, but the work-around works.

Hi, I think I can answer that. It is because you have a inside wall that hit the outside wall in a T-connection. This inside wall makes the slice outline for the inside boards on the outside wall to be split at this point.

Cases where it is not split - well maybe if the inside wall is not connected to the outside wall or if it have been adjusted in length, so the inside wall does not go through this board-slice.

If you want to force the board to go through in one piece, no matter how connected or not the inside wall is - you can move the slice outline of the slice for the board, so there is no gap. Move one of the two vertical lines so it is in line with the other vertical line. This may help.

Ok, I see it now, if I change it to 14 cm it works.

I see the function planing / planing areas in roof design (6-02-1). What does this function do??

It should be 2 cut-off, like all the other rafters. I don't understand why the rafters, next to these rafters does get the correct 2-cut-off, while these does not.

Hi. It is not very important, since I can just copy the beam drawings from the other correct rafters. I am just wondering why it is happening and if it would be possible to do something about it.

Yeah, I think it is sometimes easier to use the 2D approach to design a solution. But of course you will often not be able to count for every detail, how it will work in 3D. T.ex. if you make a cross section in two directions of a structure, that is a bit complicated - then it can be difficult to predict, how these two sections will act in the corner. But these detailed details, you will design in 3D, because it is often too difficult in 2D. Yes the 2D approach requires some work, but I think it is worth the effort. Because somehow one often "think" better in 2D.

He he, Kayaker - then somebody should hit me too, for not using D-cam sections first!

I also sometimes make 2D drawings first to decide how to make things, before I make them in 3D - because sometimes I am around 5+ different solutions before I hit the solution that satisfies my boss - and to make all these changes in 3D and then remake the 2D section drawings, will take longer time than to do it all in 2D. Another reason is that you may not want to make all layers and parts in 3D - and then you still have to draw these parts in 2D, to get a complete picture of the section drawing.