Drafting a Compound Rake

[bobgaggle]

Just wondering how you guys indicate compound rakes in your drawings. I've got one in an upcoming show and I've got the low point (+0") and the high point (+6") indicated with an arrow between the two, just like a normal rake. But I've placed it on an angle, see the photo for clarity. Is this how its done or should it be a leader with a note?

 

[Footer]

Clear enough to me.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[MNicolai]

If the rakes are fairly consistent and flat, I'd approach it like you've done it.

If the rakes are more complex and bumpy like a grassy knoll, I'd approach it like a topographic map. Practically speaking though, I'd build out the platforming with a flat surface first, then build up the contours upon the rake via whatever the simulated ground scenery is (stone, sand, grass, brick, dirt, snow, etc.). Means both representations may be useful in this case, one for the underlying structure, and one for the finished surfaces.

 

[rsmentele]

I agree, that's how I always drafted them!

 

[RickR]

That is the architectural standard as well. It clearly shows there is no such thing as a compound rake, just one that doesn't run up/down stage. Since you have rough outlines it might be worth noting exactly where the named heights occur.

On the other hand I detect a mismatch with the 6-18 platform. Since they slope in different directions a smooth joint will require little "cricket" panels.

 

[bobgaggle]

Its a compound rake because it is tilted on two axes. Up to down stage its angle is 7 degrees, and left to right its angle is 5. This eliminates the mismatch with the 6-18 platform. The photo below is from a test fit, before i skinned it with ply

 

[kicknargel]

It's tilted on one axis, it's just that the axis is on an angle to the stage. Semantics. I was just going to argue that it's not compound, but a google book search gave me a result that says "A compound rake is merely a rake that, in plan view, has a direction or rake not at 90 deg to the downstage edge (or any "obvious" edge). . ." I'll get you next time, Gadget.

So what do we call a platform that actually twists (is not planar)?

 

[FatherMurphy]

So what do we call a platform that actually twists (is not planar)?

I think 'warp' would be the most common term. Interesting challenges for true size and shape drafting....

 

[zmb]

Not sure if this is the norm for theatre-specific drawings, but I've learned that dimensions should never be placed inside an object from an engineering drawing class.

 

[MarshallPope]

From what I've seen, that is true for most build drawings, but for groundplan-type drawings, elevations are almost always on the object, and dimensions often are as well when they are included at all.

 

[bobgaggle]

It's tilted on one axis, it's just that the axis is on an angle to the stage. Semantics. I was just going to argue that it's not compound, but a google book search gave me a result that says "A compound rake is merely a rake that, in plan view, has a direction or rake not at 90 deg to the downstage edge (or any "obvious" edge). . ." I'll get you next time, Gadget.

So what do we call a platform that actually twists (is not planar)?

Not to beat a dead horse, but I don't see how this is a simple rake. On any standard rake, you could put a level on it (aligned with the top edge) and the bubble would be between the lines, no matter how the rake is oriented in relation to the stage. Not so with this one. And it doesn't twist. Its plywood skin is still flat, not deflected or twisted.

 

[FatherMurphy]

I think what you have is less a compound rake than it is a irregular shape with a simple rake.

If it's truly a flat surface at the plywood skin, then you could put another sheet of ply on it, slide it down until it touches the deck, and see that it's a single slope. What I'm imagining from your drawing and your text is a platform that's been tipped a lot up/down, tipped a little left/right, and then rotated on the deck... but it's still a flat surface, and the single slope could be accurately noted as a combination of the two tips.

Perhaps a better question is how much information is the person looking at the groundplan really needing to see? Directors and stage managers will be content with a lot less info than a master carpenter.