i am trying to create diagonal stairs (stairs that are not uniform in tread width) by firstly making stairs with uniform tread width and making a step a component then cutting away the excess on the sides using intersect faces with model (the highlighted faces are the supposed sides of the stairs). However the intersect faces with model doesnt work? I grouped the stairs by the way. Any help will be appreciated.FINAL circulation with stairs help.skp (211.5 KB)
Is this the sort of shape you are hoping for?
I redrew the steps as a single unit and made it show as a solid component/group. Then I used your lines as a guide to draw some large boxes which I also made as a solid component/group. Finally, I used Trim from the Solid Tools to cut the steps off.
FWIW, Intersect Faces didn’t work because you needed to open the group for editing first.
the overall shape is what I wanted but for the sides I was trying to have the stepwise shape following to the shape of the stairs (I hope the red lines help) Sorry for the confusion caused and thank you so much for helping
I’m not entirely sure what you mean but you can make the steps pretty much anyway you want as long as you wind up with a solid component/group. If you model them as you had them where each step shares only an edge with its neighbor, the result will not be a solid component/group.
I don’t know what you mean either. However, if what @DaveR has drawn is part of a staircase (rather than a series of steps), they do seem very shallow in relation to their front to back depth. Here in the UK, regulations would not allow a staircase of those proportions.
Digressing, but I remember at school, there were steps where the tread, (going), was about 4ft, and the Rise was about 5 inches. Then, to make it really interesting, each step is sloped down about 10 degrees!
Was brilliant in winter when it was icy! With a run up, could slide down the whole flight of about 6 steps! Could be lethal though
They’re still there too!
An arcane “Rule of Thumb” states that a tread and two risers should equal twenty-seven inches, so the wider the tread, the lower the riser. I’ve seen instances where a tread was two feet wide and the riser was three inches. It’s common on out-door steps in gardens and such.
I’ve not heard of that rule of thumb. However, there is a world of difference between steps in paving and an indoor staircase and the OP did specify stairs.
A riser of 3" is what I would call a trip, not a step. The human eye seems to need a reasonable rise to read it definitively as an actual step.
In the UK, a domestic staircase must have risers of not more than 220mm, goings of not less than 220mm, a pitch not greater than 42 degrees, and a sum of 2R + G lying between 550mm and 700mm (where R and G are rise and going). That makes it impossible to have the kind of relationship you report.
In our parts an unroofed exterior stair must have a rise of 130 mm or less, and a going of at least 390 mm so we see a lot of your “trips”.
Our rise =max. 0.18. Going 0.22
All this is a good reason for ramps. Or firemen’s poles to go down and catapults to go up.
And we’re starting to see buildings with new-fangled contraptions known as “lifts” (or in nations that don’t like simple short Anglo-Saxon words, “elevators”).
I have heard of those…never seen one, though
You mean you want the underside to be a smooth slope or stepped with risers that align with the top side risers?
Here’s an early prototype:
And here’s a steampunk version: https://bit.ly/36GdBCO
risers aligning with the top side risers
btw i copied and pasted the group/component and i successfully deleted the excess stairs on the sides (which meant the intersecting faces thing worked again)
thank you all for the help:))