Why don't these walls clean up?

[Anonymous]

Hi,

I would appriciate it someone 'who knows' takes a look at the attached files and explains why some of the walls don't clean up?

Its very annoying.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Hi,

I looked @ your drawing and see that some walls are not cleaning up in iso
view & display solution tips. The Solution Tip complains about opening
errors but that doesn't seem correct to me. I'll look into this further &
get back to you ASAP.

Sorry for the problem,
Dennis


wrote in message news:5951970@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hi,

I would appriciate it someone 'who knows' takes a look at the attached files
and explains why some of the walls don't clean up?

Its very annoying.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Thanks Dennis - I would appricate someone who know more than me taking a look...

[Anonymous]

i opened it in ACA-2009 and everything cleaned up jsut fine, i even added a
wall around you bay that's drawin with just linework.


wrote in message news:5952151@discussion.autodesk.com...
Thanks Dennis - I would appricate someone who know more than me taking a
look...

[Anonymous]

mmm - I opened it in 2009 and everything was fine, but in 2008 these walls wont clean up!

unfortunatly 2008 is the version we use!

See the attached screen dump of the issue

[Anonymous]

Ahhhhh!!

I've worked out the problem.

It seems that one wall has an elevation of -0.00000005 whilst the others have an elevation of 0.

Which is why it cleans up in 2009 and not 2008.

The reason I did not notice was that my units were set to 0.00 precision and so -0.00000005 was shown as 0.

oh well - at least I've worked it out.

Cheers anyway!

[Anonymous]

Hi Archie,

You are correct that the elevation cleanup problem was fixed in 2009. I am
seeing clenup issues in iso view however & we are researching that.

Dennis
wrote in message news:5952301@discussion.autodesk.com...
Ahhhhh!!

I've worked out the problem.

It seems that one wall has an elevation of -0.00000005 whilst the others
have an elevation of 0.

Which is why it cleans up in 2009 and not 2008.

The reason I did not notice was that my units were set to 0.00 precision and
so -0.00000005 was shown as 0.

oh well - at least I've worked it out.

Cheers anyway!

[Anonymous]

Hi,

We looked into this further & determined the problem is an Amodeler error.
The 3D body modeling is failing because of the door threshold position.
Here's how you can see & fix the issue:
- aecdwgsetup > set Unit Precision & Angle Precision to maximum > OK
- Select a door > in Property Palette notice the threshold height isn't 0
- Select all doors and set threshold height to 0 & the model error will be
corrected

With your precision values maxed out, select any wall. You will notice that
the wall elevation and angle is slightly off. This type of error generally
happens when you draw without Snap enabled. These small precision
differences will cause performance slowdown so they are worth fixing.
Drawing with snap enabled in the future will help avoid this - I suggest you
set snap in your template(s).

I also noticed that your walls are drawn a far distance from 0,0. Although I
understand the reasons for doing that, there are times when this will cause
performance and wall cleanup problems. This isn't happening in your posted
file but it's something to keep in mind.

Again, I'm sorry for the trouble and I hope this helps.

Dennis


wrote in message news:5952301@discussion.autodesk.com...
Ahhhhh!!

I've worked out the problem.

It seems that one wall has an elevation of -0.00000005 whilst the others
have an elevation of 0.

Which is why it cleans up in 2009 and not 2008.

The reason I did not notice was that my units were set to 0.00 precision and
so -0.00000005 was shown as 0.

oh well - at least I've worked it out.

Cheers anyway!

[Anonymous]

Dennis,

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not too sure how we got this error as we are normally quite careful about drawing with snap etc.

As for the co-ordinates the 0,0 is in the bottom left of the site plan - the site has several buildings in it and the buildings are positioned such that when they are XREF into the site plan they drop into position - I didn't think co-ordinates in the 100000 range were that big!

Thanks.

Thanks for your advice, I'll

[Anonymous]

In civil terms, a 100000 coordinate is quite small; however, in
architectural terms it is huge. A hundred-thousand foot long building?

I have always started my architectural plans at 100',100'. Then move and
rotate the xref in the site plan. significantly better results in both
applications.

--
Larry Bettes
ACA (ADT), C3D (& LDT/CD)
(06, 07, & 08 with all SPs installed)
P4 - Dual Core 3.0 GHz, 3.00 GB RAM
nVidia GeForce 6800 GS AGP - 256 MB
Windows XP Pro, SP 2

[Anonymous]

We always do everything in millimeters (I'm in the UK) - as far as I know everyone else in the UK also does...

Essentially, I put the lower left hand corner of the site at 0,0 and laid out everything from there - the site is approximately 400metres by 250metres.

There is nothing particularly unusual about that - IMHO...

[Anonymous]

Okay, that makes sense. I am in California and usually have survey data in
world coordinates (approx. 6400000,2000000) that I use to generate the site
plan.

--
Larry Bettes
ACA (ADT), C3D (& LDT/CD)
(06, 07, & 08 with all SPs installed)
P4 - Dual Core 3.0 GHz, 3.00 GB RAM
nVidia GeForce 6800 GS AGP - 256 MB
Windows XP Pro, SP 2


wrote in message news:5954941@discussion.autodesk.com...
We always do everything in millimeters (I'm in the UK) - as far as I know
everyone else in the UK also does...

Essentially, I put the lower left hand corner of the site at 0,0 and laid
out everything from there - the site is approximately 400metres by
250metres.

There is nothing particularly unusual about that - IMHO...

[Anonymous]

Sorry to resurrect an old post – but what I though was a workable solution is proving not to work – as there are some odd things going on.

Essentially, the attached files shows some walls which wont clean up – the problem was tracked down to the elevation height of the walls not being the same, in the original file I posted you could see that the elevation was 0.00000003, or something like that, where as other walls were different. I’ve no idea how this happened – I’m normally pretty good at not making these types of mistakes.

So as we discussed above, the easy answer was to select all the walls and make their elevation 0.

But this does not work – even with the units maxed out to full precision.

If I set the elevation to all walls to an elevation of 10 – they clean up, but when I set it back to 0 they go back to some not cleaning up.

Also, if the elevation in properties says its 0, when you id and select nearest snap anywhere on the long wall (in 3D) it comes up with a Z of -0.00000002!

The problem I have is that I cannot fix the drawing, I cannot set the walls to 0, properties always shows that they are at 0.00000000, and only a number above 0 produces the correct results and this is obviously no good to me. It doesn’t seem to like an elevation of zero.

Furthermore, if you ID the bottom of the long cross wall (in 3D) which is not cleaning up, in the middle the ID, Nearest is -0.00000004, when it passes through the adjacent room the same wall ID Z is -0.00000003.

Also, as I work on the drawing, some walls start to magically clean up and then others don’t…

What’s going on here!!??!!

(I’m using AutoCAD Architecture 2008 – I know 2009 cleans up in 3D and so this problem doesn’t happen – but it still doesn’t give proper Z heights).

[Anonymous]

Some of the walls have different start and end Zs perhaps?

[Anonymous]

the wall that doesn't cleanup have "0" wall cleanup radius...

"archie456" escreveu na notícia da
mensagem:5989828@discussion.autodesk.com...
> Sorry to resurrect an old post – but what I though was a workable solution
> is proving not to work – as there are some odd things going on.
>
> Essentially, the attached files shows some walls which wont clean up – the
> problem was tracked down to the elevation height of the walls not being
> the same, in the original file I posted you could see that the elevation
> was 0.00000003, or something like that, where as other walls were
> different. I’ve no idea how this
> happened – I’m normally pretty good at not making these types of mistakes.
>
> So as we discussed above, the easy answer was to select all the walls and
> make their elevation 0.
>
> But this does not work – even with the units maxed out to full precision.
>
> If I set the elevation to all walls to an elevation of 10 – they clean up,
> but when I set it back to 0 they go back to some not cleaning up.
>
> Also, if the elevation in properties says its 0, when you id and
> select nearest snap anywhere on the long wall (in 3D) it comes up with a Z
> of -0.00000002!
>
> The problem I have is that I cannot fix the drawing, I cannot set the
> walls to 0, properties always shows that they are at 0.00000000, and only
> a number above 0 produces the correct results and this is obviously no
> good to me It doesn’t seem to like an elevation of zero.
>
> Furthermore, if you ID the bottom of the long cross wall (in 3D) which is
> not cleaning up, in the middle the ID, N
> earest is -0.00000004, when it passes through the adjacent room the same
> wall ID Z is -0.00000003.
>
> Also, as I work on the drawing, some walls start to magically clean up and
> then others don’t…
>
> What’s going on here!!??!!
>
> (I’m using AutoCAD Architecture 2008 – I know 2009 cleans up in 3D and so
> this problem doesn’t happen – but it still doesn’t give proper Z heights).
>

[Anonymous]

"Some of the walls have different start and end Zs perhaps? " - I didn't think it was possible to do this?

"the wall that doesn't cleanup have "0" wall cleanup radius... "
- The walls cleaned up in the extract when I gave them a clean up radius - but in the full file they didn't.

I'll try to post some more of the file a bit later so you can see the problem.

I've tried changing the cleanup radius for all walls, again this seems to sort out some problems and no others.

[Anonymous]

Try this extract - its a larger area and I've changed all the cleanups to 150 - and it still doesn't cleanup...

[Anonymous]

here everything work's fine, with any edit, look the image

"archie456" escreveu na notícia da
mensagem:5990414@discussion.autodesk.com...
> Try this extract - its a larger area and I've changed all the cleanups to
> 150 - and it still doesn't cleanup...
>

[eviele]

About a hundred years ago I had similar problems. Doug Broad wrote a lisp routine that saved us. You can find it here in this post:

http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5156548

I'm not exactly sure if this will resolve your issue, but your frustration sounds similar to ours.

What we found is three things (some already addressed above):
1. With earlier versions of ADT the drawing precision had to be 1/256 to ensure the best possible wall cleanups.
2. The closer to 0,0, the better when creating walls.
3. Our walls with different z values at each end (one at 0, the other at 0.000000000003) were caused by users tracing linework. That in conjunction with inaccurate precision settings caused our issues.

Things seem much better in these newer versions, but maybe try running the zerozwall lisp routine and see if it helps you.

Eric

[Anonymous]

I have load the drawing in 2009
en changed the treshold height from doors to 0 , jou must type it in
This must be the solution
I can't open the file in 2008 so i can't see if the is oke