Questions about using ideCAD Static 6

Re: ideCAD 6.01 BETA2 Update.. Try it, give your opinion...
"saridurmus":3oepx95g" said:
In 6.10 beta2, enter the image\image configuration, for example, by dividing it vertically into two, and registering it. When we go to open a new project, the program's defacult comes, not ours. .... only the screenshot will be corrected in the next version anyway?
Click to expand...
Hello Mr. İbrahim, If you want to see the screenshot you have set in a new project, you should set that setting as "template project" you should open the new project with that template project. or you should load a project that you set the screenshot as default and select the "start using the last settings" option when opening a new project. These processes work smoothly in the program and do not require any editing in the program. Good work
 
Re: ideCAD 6.01 BETA2 Update.. Try it, give feedback... Hello. In the vertical expansion drawing of the column, it throws the reinforcements in the dimension color. The column edges are colored yellow. The colon application has the same problem. Axles are also in different colors in column application and mold plan. I don't know if there is something wrong with me. Good luck with. Good work.
 
Re: ideCAD 6.01 BETA2 Update.. Try it, give your opinion...
"yilmazozaktan":2z8cvzmt" said:
Hello. Column vertical expansion draws reinforcements in dimension color, while column edges are yellow. There is the same problem in column application. The axles are different in color in column application and mold plan. I don't know if I have a mistake. Take it easy. Good work.
Click to expand...
Hello Beta 2's standard sets are not as you mentioned, they used your old settings when opening a new project. You can choose "Start using default settings" when opening a new project. I have attached the column vertical expansion standard colors and the default.ide file. Your standard settings may be corrupted. Copy the attached default.ide file to C:\Program Files\ideCAD Static 6\Templates\structural folder . Good work
 
Mr. Yasin, When opening a new project, both boxes are checked next to the "Start using last settings" option, but when I open the project, beta2 is deactivated. My last settings should come, right? that is, I will make a template project and start the project every time I open it. oh here is what i want to say. If there is no object naming, element color, font style they are not related to the screenshot. display settings "start using last settings" is not working. I'm posting the video below. working project image new project opening window incoming image
 
Hakan, when I read your message again. Now I realized that it was only when I opened it with the template project. I had not read carefully. I will now open it with the template project.
 
Good work All İdeYapı employees and users; I cannot see the texts of the ground floor slabs and the beam scans of the attached project. I would be glad if you help. Good work
 
"aksa":1fke84vt" said:
Good work All İdeYapı employees and users, I can't see the texts and beam scans of the ground floor slabs of the project I have attached. I would appreciate your help. Good work
Click to expand...
Hello. In the dialog that opens, click the Drawing details tab. Check the box in front of the beam scan and slab inscription. Good job
 
good work guys, I'm a new ide user, I have a job at hand. I need to define inclined flooring in the attic floor. I defined the beams with the slope I want, then when I wanted to create the flooring, it automatically defined 3 of them as inclined, but I cannot define the other two as inclined, where am I going wrong, I wonder if you can help me, I would appreciate your help in advance. thank you.
 
In the project I added, it gives an error that the network cannot be created in the tile named D24. When I fix it, it gives this error in another tile. As I fix it, it gives the same error in another tile. I'll be pleased if you pay attention. Have a nice day.
 
Mr. yilmazozaktan The intersection of the beams of the P11 column, which is located on the lower right of the D24 floor, has not been fully achieved. (When you delete the column, you will see that the K99-K53 beams cannot be fully trimmed) I fixed that intersection with the endpoint edit command and added the project to the message. You use this. Good work...
 
Dear prosecutor, the level-height relations of the side beams of the inclined floors, which the program cannot find automatically, must not have been defined properly. Numerical data needs to be checked. I would also suggest you to check the nodal points in the 3D frame. Good work..
 
Why are the results of the two versions different? We first solved the attached project on ide6 5500 and then in beta2 version. When we looked at the columns from the reinforced concrete menu, different warnings were given about joint zone insecurity and section insufficiency. May we ask why? Which version are we going to believe?
 
There is a slight difference in modeling compared to the old version 6.0055, version 5, version 6.00100 and the latest 6.01 version. If you model your curtains as bars, the rigid connection beam on the curtain is not thrown in the old 6.0055 intermediate version. You can watch this situation in 3D frame. In the 6.01 beta 2 version, they added the rigid beam above the panel to the program as before. This modeling difference causes small differences in tip forces. In fact, this is the throwing of the rigid beam. If you model your curtains as shell. in this case there is no difference between 6.0055 and beta anyway. Of course, ide officials will give you the most satisfactory answer in this regard. I got such information from them on the phone. Rest assured, both versions are correct. The differences are very small. But the latest 6.01 Beta 2 coincides with version 5 as before. After all, 6.0055 is an intermediate version. The latest version is always the best version. Take it easy, good work.
 
Dear Canlarins, If we list the modeling differences of 6.01 Beta2 compared to 6.0055; 1. The spacer logic has changed. However, when you transfer your project back from 6.01 beta2 to 6.0055, the cover values also become the same. 2. As mentioned by Mr. Cassabotanic, the case of placing rigid beams in the modeling of panel elements has been changed. These situations will result in minor differences in element end forces. In both versions, if you model the panels as shells, there will be no difference in this sense. 3. While in 6.0055, torsion reinforcement can be placed in the beams depending on the torsion condition whether or not there is conformity torsion, this application is abandoned for beams with conformity torsion in version 6.01 Beta2. However, the work done will not lead to significant changes in your project. When I transfer your project to 6.0055 and compare it with 6.01 Beta2, column S05 gives B problem only on ground floor in 6.01 beta2, while B on both ground and basement floors in 6.0055. This is the only difference I see in terms of design. This difference is also due to the reason I wrote for conformity torsion. Apart from that, column S6 and S9 give stapling error on both 6.0055 and 6.01 Beta2. In columns S6, S9, problem B is seen in both versions. There is no negativity in beams in both versions. The end forces are almost the same in all elements. Finally, I would like to make the following note: ideCAD, in its new versions, aims to reach a higher point in terms of both engineering and comfort. In this context, it is due to the nature of the business that there are some differences between the versions. However, these differences will always be those that fit within the engineering tolerance range. You can use each of our versions safely and comfortably. Good work,
 
I would also like to draw your attention to a system-related issue in your project. In the ground floor ceiling, the misalignment of the K8 and B062 beams connected to the S6 and S9 columns do not coincide with the column. If the beam system formed in this way is a necessity, it would be more appropriate to define K8 and B062 beams from the bottom and top, respectively, and connect them to the beam instead of the column. Good work...
 
Thank you very much for your help very fast. After I changed the project settings and pen settings, when I analyzed my project (by creating a single rigid diaphragm), the program crashed. I downloaded the settings you sent. I have attached the project. I will be happy if you take a look. have a nice day.
 
"yilmazozaktan":29qaglo6" said:
Thank you very much for your help. After changing the project settings and pen settings, when I analyzed my project (by creating a single rigid diaphragm), the program threw it. I uploaded the settings you sent. I attached the project to the attachment. I would appreciate it if you could take a look. Good day.
Click to expand...
Hello Mr. Yilmazozaktan There is a problem in your project when you analyze the floors according to the assumption of a single rigid diaphragm. Analysis can be made according to the acceptance of more than one rigid diaphragm. This situation is recorded in our Ver 6.02 beta2 detection list. There are independent rigid diaphragms. I don't think it's appropriate for you to solve this project based on the assumption of a single rigid diaphragm. You can save it as and analyze it at 6.055. you are hereditary. Good work
 
We are constantly having trouble with the attic static calculations. Rize attic is built by pulling 220 cm, so the columns stay within the drawing distance. We carry the deck with masonry bricks. But it is not possible to do this while doing static calculations. Is it possible for you to do a study on this? ? Creating flooring upon inserting a load-bearing wall onto the wall ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top