Issue with the F(x) feature in bottom inset for a deck

Moderators: Jason Susnjara, Larry Epplin, Clint Buechlein, Scott G Vaal, Jason Susnjara, Larry Epplin, Clint Buechlein, Scott G Vaal

Post Reply
User avatar
Scott Marshburn
Guru Member
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat, Mar 05 2011, 7:29AM
Company Name: Heritage WoodWorks
Country: UNITED STATES
Location: Jacksonville Nc
Contact:

Issue with the F(x) feature in bottom inset for a deck

Post by Scott Marshburn »

Take a standard framed cabinet into cabinet editor
In settings and preferences under deck using the F(x) set the deck inset to be bottom rail width – deck thickness
Click ok and return to cabinet editor
In settings and Preferences change the deck material to a ½ inch thick material click ok
The cabinet resizes to 29 ¾ h but still says it is 30h in the cabinet size bar.
If you go back into settings and preferences under deck notice that the bottom inset is still 1 ½.
User avatar
Scott G Vaal
Thermwood Team
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue, May 17 2005, 12:44PM
Company Name: Thermwood Corporation
Location: Thermwood Corp: Dale, Indiana
Contact:

Re: Issue with the F(x) feature in bottom inset for a deck

Post by Scott G Vaal »

Scott,

I am not sure if I fully understand the issue. It seems to be doing what it is suppose to do. My initial bottom f(x) inset gets set to 1.25" with the 3/4 Generic default material. Then when I change it to 1/2 Generic Dbx, the f(x) inset gets set to 1.5". This appears to be correct. Am I missing something?
Regards,

Scott Vaal
-Thermwood/eCabinet Systems-
Dell Precision / Xeon E3-1240 / 8GB RAM /NVIDIA Quadro K2000
User avatar
Scott Marshburn
Guru Member
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat, Mar 05 2011, 7:29AM
Company Name: Heritage WoodWorks
Country: UNITED STATES
Location: Jacksonville Nc
Contact:

Re: Issue with the F(x) feature in bottom inset for a deck

Post by Scott Marshburn »

Scott G Vaal wrote:Scott,

I am not sure if I fully understand the issue. It seems to be doing what it is suppose to do. My initial bottom f(x) inset gets set to 1.25" with the 3/4 Generic default material. Then when I change it to 1/2 Generic Dbx, the f(x) inset gets set to 1.5". This appears to be correct. Am I missing something?
Scott
My bad on the 1 ½. This is correct but hover over or measure the end and stile. I get 29 3/4. This should be 30 inches.
User avatar
Scott G Vaal
Thermwood Team
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue, May 17 2005, 12:44PM
Company Name: Thermwood Corporation
Location: Thermwood Corp: Dale, Indiana
Contact:

Re: Issue with the F(x) feature in bottom inset for a deck

Post by Scott G Vaal »

Scott,

Hmmm, I get 29 1/2" for the stile length and 34 1/2" for the ends. With a 5" toe height, this still seems to all be correct for me. You are using the Std Base Framed, correct?
Regards,

Scott Vaal
-Thermwood/eCabinet Systems-
Dell Precision / Xeon E3-1240 / 8GB RAM /NVIDIA Quadro K2000
User avatar
Scott Marshburn
Guru Member
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat, Mar 05 2011, 7:29AM
Company Name: Heritage WoodWorks
Country: UNITED STATES
Location: Jacksonville Nc
Contact:

Re: Issue with the F(x) feature in bottom inset for a deck

Post by Scott Marshburn »

I am using an standard framed upper.
User avatar
Scott G Vaal
Thermwood Team
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue, May 17 2005, 12:44PM
Company Name: Thermwood Corporation
Location: Thermwood Corp: Dale, Indiana
Contact:

Re: Issue with the F(x) feature in bottom inset for a deck

Post by Scott G Vaal »

Scott Marshburn wrote:I am using an standard framed upper.
Ahhh, that's where I was out of sync with you. Now that I am loading the Std Upper Framed, I am see your issue. I will get it listed and resolved. For now, if you regen the cabinet once more, it will correct itself. Thanks for the report.
Regards,

Scott Vaal
-Thermwood/eCabinet Systems-
Dell Precision / Xeon E3-1240 / 8GB RAM /NVIDIA Quadro K2000
User avatar
Scott Marshburn
Guru Member
Posts: 862
Joined: Sat, Mar 05 2011, 7:29AM
Company Name: Heritage WoodWorks
Country: UNITED STATES
Location: Jacksonville Nc
Contact:

Re: Issue with the F(x) feature in bottom inset for a deck

Post by Scott Marshburn »

Thanks Scott. I did not even think about doing that.
Post Reply