CETLV

Member
  • Content count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About CETLV

  • Rank
    Greenhorn

Recent Profile Visitors

212 profile views
  1. absolutely, I know its not for lack of trying! I know everyone is working hard. But I cant help but feel as though I am paying you to be a beta tester. As for the rigid structure you cannot accurately do that as the numbers are way off as I found in submitting a file to SS for clarification. Rigid cross sections just do not provide numbers that can be used. I DO however love the fact that loads are finding their structures, motors are intelligently attaching themselves and a lot of the other bugs that were so frustrating at the launch. However I feel that if you found early on that no manufacturers would give you any data perhaps rethink the launch of the product. Its a very dangerous tool for novice designers. Had I not known better and not known something was fishy with the numbers given to me with the rigid cross sections, things could have turned ugly. And no disclaimer can bring back lives.
  2. Soooo, we were told that braceworks would have some actual functionality shortly after its release. Its still pretty useless to this point. Hardly any cross sections that US designers can use, no bridles, no ground support.... is it just me or are they waiting for 19 to make us all buy it again? If This has all been corrected and its actual functional then I stand corrected, and possibly be pointed in the right direction? So far I have been very disappointed with the product.
  3. My experience with atomic has been great. I get most of the new ones as soon as they are made public. However I always have to clean them up and make the extrudes work for my workflow here at my job. They make them all in other programs, and there is always issues importing into autocad. but it can be done.
  4. I made this conversion in DWG, you can import it and it may work ok. Note: I work in 1:1 all the time to make cross platforming easier, so you may have to scale it. Its an upgrade since anything from atomic will be all wireframe with no meshes anyways. hive 3d solid.dwg
  5. Wesley, you can message me and I can provide you some very good resources on max seating arrangements.
  6. Good day, 14 seats is just fine as a starting point. However the vast majority of the codes read is that you cannot have any more than 30' to an exit row (think standing in the center of a 60' aisle, you have 30' to the choice of 2). Here in LV we have what are considered to be the strictest fire codes in the country and I have not had one single floor plan kicked back from any out of town show in almost every state following LV codes. Using this length, to maximize seating with headstrong clients you CAN do a 50+ft aisle, but you cannot exceed 30 ft to any egress path. Also, keep in mind that the width of the row path (from the back of the seat in front of you to the front of your seat) starts at 12" and opens by .3" per chair added over 14. So by using the standard 18" row path, you are basically covered for seating sections of 50+ ft never to exceed 60. if you actually do push it to 60' youll need a 20" aisle, but I recommend a 22" aisle. I can only imagine that most just do it so they never run into an issue. The thing to always keep in mind with seating of these widths is that the aisle widths usually need to go beyond 6ft to accommodate the funneling of people from each section. The simplest way to do this is to calculate all people that will be funneling into that area and do the standard .2" PP calc. Wesley this is a fine resource, however you have to know that Clark County actually governs the Fire Codes, so you should be looking at http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/building/fire-prevention/Pages/FireCode.aspx for your info. The 6ft rounds of ten indeed need to be placed on 12' centers, however you CAN nest them provided the occupancy does not exceed linear exit space. To nest tables successfully, take your tables, place a 12' diameter circle, draw a 6' radius line from the center to the edge, then draw a line straight down from the middle point of that line down until it hits the diameter line of the 12' circle, this is as close as you can nest them. (Assuming 18" chairs of course) Regardless of how you distribute the tables, you must have a minimum of 3' aisle from chair to chair. This does NOT change if the width of the table changes, you still must have 3ft. So a 5ft rd, IS permissible to have on an 11ft center, again, assuming the 18" chair. If you do not have chairs (ie high boys, cocktail tables) you still have to maintain the 3ft aisle. This rule of thumb basically applies to anything involving rounds to anything, other chairs, tables, walls, banquet setups, bars, you get the drift. Needless to say that Clark County has really buckled down on these regs since the mandalay bay shooting. Lots of egress problems there... message me if you want some more info. And don't forget to keep those fire extinguishers clear! Love this thread and I would love to hear about stories about other fire marshals, they can be rough, even when they are wrong! :-)
  7. Vectorworks peeps, I am really liking the advancements in the Braceworks functionality, however I do have one suggestion for a feature that I would like several to chime in on. I know when we put a truss and motor up, it calculates loads at the hook, but is there a feature in the works to be able to design a grid with points? Or beams with distributed loads across lbs per ft? I would like to create a layer with beams, and or hook ins in ballroom ceilings then know where I stand on a total ceiling load on the entire ceiling (I know I can just add it up, but just a suggestion) and loads on certain beams, hook ins, ribbon grids, fly rails, etc. Is there anything in the works for this in addition to the ground support and bridle functions? I do a LOT of work here in LV and end up designing far different rigging systems using the same exact set of points all the time.
  8. well, now that I think more about it, that info IS the info they would have to stand behind in a lawsuit anyways, so they should be confident in their numbers, but there is a lot to be desired for a customer using the wrong model cross section, for light duty vs heavy duty models. If they use the heavy duty numbers, and get the OK in Braceworks, then actually rig light duty and it fails, then thats what they are likely thinking. However someone who is serious enough about rigging knowledge to pay 5 grand for a license you would hope wouldnt be so negligent...
  9. Perhaps they believe that people are going to rely on the software and despite any "disclaimer" they are not going to get out the calculator and do the actual math!
  10. Well, its hard to say. I design for different manufacturers all the time depending on who the house rents from. One of the most common ones I have seen lately is XSF. Its just sort of a bummer that braceworks is essentially useless with its math unless you get very specific data. I am also curious about the chain cross sections in the hoists. rigid seems like itll work just fine, however not all chain has the same details. but i mean if a chain fails before other components, you failed math in first grade. I am indeed a SS guy, so I will keep a lookout.
  11. Has there been any updates on this? I am still searching for accurate cross section info. on a multitude of manufacturers.
  12. I have to say, SP2 really helped a lot of the bugs out. However I am curious about the hoist chain cross section only having a fibercore option set available and not typical chain used with hoists? My rigging numbers were off significantly because most of the truss symbols do not have cross sections added to them as of yet, and by default are Rigid, (which can really mess you up if you dont pay attention) Does a Rigid chain cross section do the same?
  13. Fantastic response to this question, thank you all!
  14. Oh thanks! Much appreciated!
  15. Hey thanks for responding. I do know about the border tools. Thats what I do now, but I was hoping to see a top finish style that is more of a bunting style that has a sewn in tie back. Its not that its a huge thing, I was just wondering if anyone had a better method. More or less just me being lazy and wanting a "skirt the stage button" :-)