Hi!
First, i want to thank @Kent1Cooper for his great lisp.
I found it in a pretty old post. I tried modifying its unit to cm.
Lisp is quite long, but the writing is very neat. Although I am new to lisp, I can understand it somewhat (Laugh).
I hope the author, or anyone else can help me add the 3rd option - Landing :I'm editing it from Option Zigzag.
Stair case has Landing behind the first Running.
Ps: In addition, the Steps are separate, can join into pline?
I'm glad you like it, as far as it goes. I attach the "current" [still 10 years old] version -- I don't recall what's different about it from the 15-year-old version -- it doesn't do what you're asking, either, but presumably it's improved in some way(s).
[I notice the horizontal extensions at the top ends of handrail top edges are not in your drawing. Did you remove those, or are they not required in your jurisdiction, or did the older version not draw them?]
I may try editing in some of what you're asking about. But I would not do it to specify the horizontal positions of opposite ends of the overall extent on the two levels. If done that way, you could specify a distance that is not possible in code-compliant configuration -- with a landing shorter than allowed, or even of negative length. I would have it ask for a landing length, and it would determine how long horizontally the overall needs to be. [Even if specifying the overall horizontal extent, would it not make more sense for that to be measured to where the top nosing lands, not the other end of what would be a tread if it kept going up, but is a meaningless location when it's the beginning of the extended floor level?] In some circumstances [where I am] the minimum landing length is affected by the width of the stair, which the stair section routine does not consider, so it would need to ask about that, too.
@Vuxvix wrote:
....
-currently lisp also can't set the value 0 for nosing. Can this be added?
....
As for that, yes, you can:
....
Nosing Projection or straight-riser Cant <1>: 0
....
@Vuxvix wrote:
I get a mistake when changing unit to cm. So riser cant set to 0>>fixed
Line 254 : (initget 2) > (initget 4)....
In an (initget) function, the number argument has nothing to do with drawing units. >Read about it< in the AutoLisp Reference. If you changed it from my original 4 to 2, that is exactly the cause of this problem.
As Kent mentioned need to set stairs standard, this Australia. AS 1657 - 1992
;; Routines offer IBC & ADA (as of May 2013) defaults of:
;; 7" maximum riser [in Public and Accessible stairs]; 7-3/4" in [non-accessible] Dwelling Units;
;; 11" minimum tread [in Public and Accessible stairs]; 10" in [non-accessible] Dwelling Units;
;; 44" stair run width; 36" when Dwelling Unit selected (also allowable in Public with occupancy <50);
;; 36" handrail height (middle of allowable range).
So to match metric standards various values would need to be changed. What are your stair standards ?
@krishnandynBQY9Z wrote:
thanks, I just want in metric i would enter the (tread & rise) values as per company standard
You should be able to just enter those at the prompts. The offered defaults could be changed to metric values if you supply what the applicable Code requires, but even without that, you can always enter whatever values you like.
BUT keep in mind that the basis of Code requirements may be different for you than for me. Here, there's a minimum tread depth {"going" in the Australian example], and in order to not consume more space in plan than necessary, we typically just use the minimum. And there's a maximum riser height, and the routine calculates the smallest number of risers for the given floor-to-floor distance, such that the riser height does not exceed the maximum, again to use the fewest number of steps possible, to minimize space consumption. We don't have the complexity of the Australian example, with its range within which the product of going x riser must fall, and its slope limits. If you are in a jurisdiction with similar requirements, this routine is not built to work with them, and it would be up to you to try some values, see what results, and compare it to the Code limits.
Also, one thing it doesn't ask for is the horizontal extension of the handrail that our Codes require at the top of a run, which is the 'access' and 'exttop' variables, which are universally a foot (12") in our situations, so it's built in. If you even have a horizontal extension requirement at the top, change that 12.0 value.
@Sea-Haven wrote:
.... this Australia. AS 1657 - 1992 ....
So to match metric standards various values would need to be changed. What are your stair standards ?
In considering how to account for the Australian rules [which I assume are similar to those in some other places], I am wondering....
In order to take up the least necessary space in a building, presumably one would want to use a combination of rise & going [what we call tread] that results in the fewest steps possible. So given the floor-to-floor distance, the routine would divide that by the maximum allowable riser height, and if it doesn't divide exactly, round the number of risers up, so that the riser will not exceed the maximum height. [That part is the same as the current Imperial-basis routine.] Then comes calculation of the going length. It would presumably use the low end of the product range to calculate the minimum length of that from the riser, then check whether the resulting stair slope is within the angle limits, and adjust if necessary until it complies.
HERE'S THE QUESTION: If that process results in a going length of, for example, 263.7612mm, would you typically actually use a value like that? Or would it be rounded to, for example, the nearest 5mm or maybe 10mm multiple that fits the Code limits?
