<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Use of Complex profiles for walls instead of composites in Modeling</title>
    <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Use-of-Complex-profiles-for-walls-instead-of-composites/m-p/141680#M76049</link>
    <description>It sounds like a good idea to me. I'm starting to experiment with the idea a bit, too.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Using different profiles does allow you to differentiate them in plan (with a different fill, for example) so that different wall thicknesses have different appearances. It would also make it easier to keep track of different wall types if you do automated takeoffs or schedules based on them.</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:21:01 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Jody S Keppers</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-11-22T06:21:01Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Use of Complex profiles for walls instead of composites</title>
      <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Use-of-Complex-profiles-for-walls-instead-of-composites/m-p/141679#M76048</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV class="actalk-migrated-content"&gt;&lt;T&gt;Does anyone see any reason not to use basic complex profiles set up to stretch both vertically and in width for our typical exterior walls?  I like the fact that you can build the wall around the reference line and when changes are needed latter in the design they can be done without worrying about the location of the wall core moving on plan.  Plus this method will allow us to use one complex profile for several stud thicknesses.&lt;/T&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:29:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Use-of-Complex-profiles-for-walls-instead-of-composites/m-p/141679#M76048</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-20T22:29:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Use of Complex profiles for walls instead of composites</title>
      <link>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Use-of-Complex-profiles-for-walls-instead-of-composites/m-p/141680#M76049</link>
      <description>It sounds like a good idea to me. I'm starting to experiment with the idea a bit, too.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Using different profiles does allow you to differentiate them in plan (with a different fill, for example) so that different wall thicknesses have different appearances. It would also make it easier to keep track of different wall types if you do automated takeoffs or schedules based on them.</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:21:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.graphisoft.com/t5/Modeling/Use-of-Complex-profiles-for-walls-instead-of-composites/m-p/141680#M76049</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jody S Keppers</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-22T06:21:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

