topic Re: Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles in Modeling

Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles

Anonymous — Thu, 25 May 2023 16:28:13 GMT

I've created a custom profile of a 10" Concrete Foundation Wall with a Footing and a ledge to support the brick of the wall above. This wall is to be used for a basement. The problem is that when I place the interior framed walls (composite of 1/2" gypsum and 2x4" framing) around the foundation in the basement the windows and doors will no longer penetrate both the framed and concrete walls. The only solution I can come up with is to add the 2x4" framing and gypsum to the complex profile of the foundation wall thus making a single wall containing all of the elements so that the windows and doors will create openings all the way through. This works as intended for my basement floor plan. However, this creates a problem when creating a foundation plan because the foundation plan then shows the concrete, the framing and the gypsum instead of just the concrete because the materials of the complex profile cannot be broken up into layers.

So, my question then, is what do you generally do when designing a basement with windows through the foundation and interior walls? This can't be an uncommon issue so I'm assuming I've missed some obvious solution. Any suggestions are appreciated. Thank you.

Re: Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles

Pete — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:24:17 GMT

I add an empty opening of appropriate size & location to the interior "furring" wall. Yes, there is then a gap between the inner wall and outer wall or walls which I don't bother with.

In theory, instead of an empty opening, you could use a window frame & trim only with a jamb width that fills the gap. Kind of like modeling extension jambs.

Re: Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles

Anonymous — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:15:05 GMT

Pete wrote:
I add an empty opening of appropriate size & location to the interior "furring" wall. Yes, there is then a gap between the inner wall and outer wall or walls which I don't bother with.

In theory, instead of an empty opening, you could use a window frame & trim only with a jamb width that fills the gap. Kind of like modeling extension jambs.

This is the method I've seen suggested, however, it seems like a bit of a "jury rigged" solution. This means that if I move the window I now have to move the opening or window frame as well. Not that it's a lot of work, but why add a step when it seems so intuitive to have the window penetrate a wall that directly abuts the wall on which the window or door is placed? There should at least be an option on the window or door objects to do this.

Re: Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles

Anonymous — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:20:45 GMT

How about doing it all as one profile wall, setting the furring walls to their own individual pens, then creating a foundation plan pen set that turns those pens white?

Re: Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles

Pete — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:14:39 GMT

it seems so intuitive to have the window penetrate a wall that directly abuts the wall on which the window or door is placed

Not for me. My crew is actually framing two separate openings at different times in walls that are different heights many times. The opening in the interior studwall is not the same size as the window rough opening, depending in finishes, etc.. By calling out the interior opening and sill/head heights, it will get built right.

Re: Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles

Anonymous — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:26:49 GMT

Pete wrote:
it seems so intuitive to have the window penetrate a wall that directly abuts the wall on which the window or door is placed
Not for me. My crew is actually framing two separate openings at different times in walls that are different heights many times. The opening in the interior studwall is not the same size as the window rough opening, depending in finishes, etc.. By calling out the interior opening and sill/head heights, it will get built right.

That makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought about it that way.

Re: Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles

JaredBanks — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:21:25 GMT

Have you tried fiddling around with the Floor Plan Cut Plane settings in the view settings dialog box? You should be able to cut the plan below the windows and then you'd only see the foundation part. Likewise if the wall starts on say story -2 (foundation) and story -1 is the basement (and the wall is assigned to show on all relevant stories) you should be able to get a similar effect, I think. Only fooled around with those functions, though...

Re: Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles

Da3dalus — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:59:59 GMT

This has been a conundrum ever since composites were introduced. You want to include all of the layers of a wall, so that windows and doors penetrate properly. On the other hand, you may want to create a shell or foundation plan, with only the structural elements and no furring. You can't turn composite layers on or off by view (though you can change the appearance of the separator lines and hatches). This could be solved by having a "show core only" checkbox in the model view options. But for now, there isn't an easy answer.

And what about partial furring situations? Typically, if I build a block building shell, and furr out the walls, the furring only extends a few inches above the ceiling. In the plenum, it's exposed block, which I would like reflected on sections. The only way I can do this is to have another wall stacked on top of the furred wall, which doesn't make the same changes that your main wall does. Complex profile walls are another solution, but I haven't played with them much, and they seem a bit confusing.

Some things are simplistic for simplicity sake. This may be the best solution without overcomplicating the software.

Re: Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles

Anonymous — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:27:46 GMT

atlantex wrote:
I've created a custom profile of a 10" Concrete Foundation Wall with a Footing and a ledge to support the brick of the wall above. This wall is to be used for a basement. The problem is that when I place the interior framed walls (composite of 1/2" gypsum and 2x4" framing) around the foundation in the basement the windows and doors will no longer penetrate both the framed and concrete walls. The only solution I can come up with is to add the 2x4" framing and gypsum to the complex profile of the foundation wall thus making a single wall containing all of the elements so that the windows and doors will create openings all the way through. This works as intended for my basement floor plan. However, this creates a problem when creating a foundation plan because the foundation plan then shows the concrete, the framing and the gypsum instead of just the concrete because the materials of the complex profile cannot be broken up into layers.

So, my question then, is what do you generally do when designing a basement with windows through the foundation and interior walls? This can't be an uncommon issue so I'm assuming I've missed some obvious solution. Any suggestions are appreciated. Thank you.

Why not put an empty window object or a niche object in the size/position as your window? Line them up and that should work.

Re: Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:14:21 GMT

I stumbled here looking for something related.

In the real world, on-site these sorts of things are irrelevant for the builders. Framers need to know where to put the openings, and in the USA and such they need to have an idea about where to put the studs. That's it. I helped build houses or built houses for 20 years and these sorts of fine-issues are only relevant to the architects. Almost sometimes we wish, as architects, that we had a simple eraser like in the old days. Put the window in there, and erase the lines and "elements" that conflict with it.

In 2d drawings, often this is what we do. Sure, not quite "it" and definitely a work around, but remember, we're not making nice drawings, despite how often we architects DO do that- we're making plans for the people who BUILD the structures. In the end, the clients RARELY know what lines mean what, and a crew who is so in-experienced they can't read a blueprint or understand a note should not be on site with tools working on a building to begin with, especially in a place where common sense rules (I.E. fix-all solutions that have become USA rote standards without really ever being analyzed and really thought through- this is THE most vulnerable weather place on most walls in the real world)!

So this perhaps is why Graphisoft does not sink a lot of manpower into finding a solution- it simply isn't relevant in the real world for the builders.

Ironically, as I recall, this "standard" of building ITSELF grew out of lack of experience or a better method or way to deal with how wooden walls meet concrete foundations, and protecting them from the elements. We let the siding and etc cover part of the foundation etc., etc simply because that "is how it's done".... But that was a work around to begin with in the real world once, that has now become a standard practice- one which STILL has problems and perhaps might be better solved by some creativity eventually in the real world on real buildings. As a builder all the methods we found always had the "fudge" factor built in. As an architect, simply, the job, as you said, gets done. We just need to know on-site where the edges of the window openings need to be- an inch or cm one way or another... despite the AR factor of the architectural world...without someone on site checking the exact measurements, who cares?
-and this is coming from someone who also built cabinets and restored antique wood sailboats, where 1/64" can often make a difference!

Anyway.
CP walls can be a pain, but with the understanding of their uses and when to not make things more complicated, I find they are more than 100% adequate for all the tasks not only as an architect, but would suffice for me to build even the most complex buildings on-site.
IT is a limited tool, but if it was more complicated....it wouldn't be as useful. And to make it work the way this thread started, would really be a pain- 3dsMax might be a better solution for modeling in this way. They're a huge firm though, and the CODE to change or import/export and license and work with them to make this work in AC...????
I say simplify the drawings, myself- as someone who built for 20 years. builders who know what they're doing only need a note.

Re: Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles

Da3dalus — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:55:57 GMT

I certainly understand that we overachieve in our drawings, often in a vain (sic) attempt to create something aesthetic. It's in our nature to take pride, especially if you become bored with toilet elevations. However, in the end, I think we all realize that the "beauty" of our drawings is judged by the accuracy, conciseness, simplicity, and correctness to what they represent.

The real-world test of our drawings is not simply the use of the end-user (the laborers), ro the impression of the owners, but the burden of proof as an addendum to the contract between owner and contractor (at least here in the USA). The drawings are the agreed-upon terms, and if there is something misdrawn or not properly represented, the contractor can deny fault when it is built wrong. Of course, this all comes down to money. If it's not clear in the drawings (or specs), then it'll be a change order for more money and time, which many owners simply don't have. If that's the case, it will stay built wrong, or some other element will have to be deleted or cheapened. Either way, the building is scarred, and we have to live with that.

So, BIM in this case is a balance between (A) being able to accurately represent construction and (B) having tools to quickly and easily model that construction. Graphisoft must always be aware of the tradeoffs as they improve their product. Our livelihoods depend on it.

Re: Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:32:27 GMT

Agreed.

It is a fine line between function, form and the art for the art sake of it.

I think MOST architects and designers, esp if we trained on paper or in something like Autocad, are looking for something that can do what we want to have show up in the final result on paper, or even sometimes in 3d. In that way GS fails in the special instances because it begins to become too complicated.

Where the devil comes in is that it is quite rare in my experience for these tiny details to matter. I imagine in some instances the level of detail and finesse really can be crucial (prefabs, large metal work quantities and giant buildings with glass and steel, with special exteriors, etc).

Usually in those instances everyone reverts to AutoCAD for it's ease of perfect line making and editing, something ironically we could still do with AC, if we wanted to just keep it in 2d.

By the way, I noticed tonight we can have things show up in 2d or 3d- either or both or none. Pretty handy, and a creative mind can find solutions for this without SEO's or such...

but nothing in the end quite can keep up with pen and paper or that eraser, eh? So much work for these functions that we can simply draw.

Boggles the mind- and look how far we've come as a profession!

I'm just rambling now.