Default Snap Settings 3

[WinelandV]

I'm using RISA-3D v.20.0.2.

Has anyone found a way to have the "Quarter Points" and "Third Points" boxes unchecked by default when you start the program? I remember being able to disable the 1/3 and 1/4 point snapping in the older versions (v17) of RISA.

Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".

 

[dold]

I'd have thought it would be somewhere in one of the XML files in C:\RISA User Data\user\Defaults but i can't seem to find anything related to that toolbar. Tech support would know. Theyre quick.

 

[WinelandV]

Well that's farther down the rabbit hole than I even knew to go - thanks Dold!

Rather than clog up tech support, let's hope someone from RISA still reads this sub-forum occasionally:

It would be a nice (and hopefully easy to implement) feature to be able to save default snap settings.

Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".

 

[JoshPlumSE]

In the old version, the "snap points" were associated with the drawing grid. So, I'd look at the *.DEF files in the Defaults sub-folder. My best bet would be the following file, but just perusing it on my machine (which has a demo version of V19 installed) tells me that the snaps aren't in there.

_dwgrid_3d_rf.def​

I'm curious if there's a reason why you don't want to send a quick e-mail to tech support? I'm sure they're very used to having questions about differences between the old and new interfaces.

 

[dold]

I couldn't resist.

Thank you for reaching out to us today.

You are correct that version 17 did have these snapping point options available to be set as a default (from within a different menu).


Unfortunately, when we rearranged the icons and tools for the new user interface (way back in version 18) it appears that this save as defaults check box was removed:


Therefore, I have written up this issue so that this functionality can be added back into the program with an enhancement request.
That being said, you will be notified directly via email as soon as this functionality is added back into the program.

 

[WinelandV]

I didn't want to send the email to tech support, because I didn't see it as a technical problem (like r/f in columns not designing correctly).

That being said, LPS for dold for going ahead and doing it anyway.



Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".

 

[dold]

I don't really mind bugging tech support about small stuff. There's a gaggle of them that take turns at the tech support keyboard. A lot of times when you ask "can you do X in risa3d?", they'll say something like "No, but that would be a good improvement/feature. We'll put in a developer request and let you know when it's implemented." Friendly folks they are!

(like r/f in columns not designing correctly).

care to elaborate on that one?

 

[WinelandV]

A co-worker was doing some rc columns, and had done an explicit rebar layout (instead of optimize). The bug wasn't in the capacity calculation, but in the graphic output of the column section - the section showing the r/f wouldn't show all the bars for an explicit layout, but it would for an optimize layout.

For instance - he specified (8) bars in his column, would solve LC's, and then hit the detail button to see the column details. In the cross section that shows up in the detail view, it would only show the (4) corner bars and not show the intermediate bars. It appeared that the capacity calcs were still being done correctly, so no worries on that end.

He did email tech support and they told him it was a known bug.

Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".

 

[dold]

Gotcha. I feel like I read about that one in a recent release notes? Or maybe that was RAM SS - something about concrete column design in RAM Concrete. Dunno. But risafloor does make conc column design a good bit easier than RAM does. FWIW. Except for seismic applications I'm not sure. Haven't done that in risa.

On another note - if you use risafloor for wood design i've made a few custom redesign lists for stuff like LVLs (multi-ply in standard sizes) and wood studpacks (3, 4, 5-2x6 for example). Stock redesign lists don't exist for those. I can share if you're interested.

 

[WinelandV]

That's very kind, but we don't use RISA Floor - just 3D, Foundation, and Connection.

Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".

 

[dold]

Ah, gotcha. Connection seems like it would be quite handy. I'm tired of RAM connection...

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I don't really mind bugging tech support about small stuff. There's a gaggle of them that take turns at the tech support keyboard. A lot of times when you ask "can you do X in risa3d?", they'll say something like "No, but that would be a good improvement/feature. We'll put in a developer request and let you know when it's implemented." Friendly folks they are!

I worked for RISA for a long time (just shy of 16 years). Most of that time was spent either as the primary support engineer or managing the support group. Now I work for one of their competitors (SAP2000/CSI). I've also talked to some people that worked at what (in my mind) was a dysfunctional company (STAAD/REI).

In my experience at all these companies, the ones that do well (pre-Nemetcheck RISA / and CSI) tend to be the ones where the people who talk to the customers the most (i.e. the tech support guys) are given a significant voice in the company. So, I always encourage people to talk to these companies when there are minor tweaks that can make the program better. That can be really helpful....

Note, I said Pre-nemetchek RISA not because I know that much about how RISA works now, but because I saw the way it changed when I was leaving.... Much more "stay in your lane" type of attitude from the higher ups. It's probably still better than STAAD was in the REI days. But, it was definitely drifting away from that at the time. Just not as much of a "customer focused" attitude as it was back when I started there(2002). Maybe even beginning to have a attitude of superiority over the engineers who used the program.

I talked to a customer once who switched over from STAAD to RISA. He said when STAAD first implemented Time History analysis (back in the REI days) it was clear that they had released a glorified Beta version that just didn't work. He said it was limited to a maximum of 500 time steps. Like they had no idea that there were structures out there supporting equipment which operated at 500 Hz or faster. My point is that this was a "marketing feature" for STAAD. It was about selling more units of the program, not about getting the feature correct.

Caveat: My time at RISA ended in a less than amicable way. Plus, RISA/Nemetchek (through a 3rd party) have threatened me with a lawsuit for talking about them. Ergo, I am not exactly an unbiased party on this subject.