Does the FT (footing) dimension shown in the profile view adhere to the timber dimensions (TT, TW)?

[shkhamd]

Hi, first of all, tremendous thank you for building this amazing tool!

I am writing up plans to build a dome by myself and I am trying to understand how to make sense of the measurements shown in the profile view for each timber pieces. So far I am able to digest everything except the dimensions shown for the footing.

I have generated a model with N=11, M=5, (-)= 50 deg, ZH=1500, TW=90, TT=40, AM Beveled with Footing.

However, the footing dimension shown appears to be approx. 90mmx51mm which doesn't seem to align with the TW, TT that I set originally.

How can the thickness be more than the timber thickness I set originally?
I am suspecting that I might be interpreting the dimensions wrong here, or could it be that the footing thickness just need to be more than 40mm in this case?

[shkhamd]

Update:
I did some more playing around with the TW, TT settings and tried to see how they impact the footing thickness.
So far I believe there is a pattern, e.g. the max thickness dimension appear to be equal to the TT + the offset of the bevel edge.

e.g. in the above screenshot, TT was 40mm. In the "Left" view, the bevel offset is calculated as 11mm.
Thus, it is showing max thickness as 51mm (40+11).

I generated few other random models and it seems to be giving the thickness this way in all cases:
Below example with TW=38, TT=19: In "left" view of the footing profile, bevel offset shown as 6mm and the max thickness shown as 25mm (19+6).

I can not understand why it is working this way, any clarification would have been very nice :)
Kind regards!

[OrangeJuce82]

Hello shkhamd,

You're absolutely right in understanding that the footer has the thickness of the timber plus the bevel. Nothing more. If you want, you just need to subtract the delta to get back to the original thickness.

In fact, depending on the position of the vanishing point, we can't always obtain a base using just the timber thickness, which is why it's made thicker to cover all cases.

We can review the algorithm if needed, but it's impossible to cover all scenarios based solely on the timber width.

Best regards.

[shkhamd]

Hi Florian, much thanks for such a quick response :)
Yes, knowing that it was the timber thickness plus the bevel offset added to give the max thickness is good enough for me and I can work with it.
Just wanted to make sure my interpretation of the dimensions were correct.

Thanks a lot!