topic Re: Documenting proposed site levels in Documentation

Documenting proposed site levels

Josh Verran — Mon, 22 May 2023 21:51:30 GMT

I'm not sure if I'm using the correct workflow.
I have a sloping site (mesh), I have used a slab and performed a SEO to create a flat building platform.
I then need to add level dimensions to indicate what the proposed levels are.
When I use the level dimension tool, the dimensions only return the original heights, not the new cut heights.

This seems like a silly question, but can the level dimension tool be used to dimension the levels of a cut+fill site?
Or is it a case that we can not (should not) use the SEO to cut meshes?

I'm hoping I'm just using the tools incorrectly.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Re: Documenting proposed site levels

Josh Verran — Sun, 24 Jan 2021 21:07:52 GMT

A follow-up query would be how to show the actual mesh in plan view.
Currently, it shows as a green rectangle, whereas I would have expected to see something that resembled the new shape of the mesh.

Something like in the image below.

Re: Documenting proposed site levels

Barry Kelly — Mon, 25 Jan 2021 02:17:35 GMT

Solid Element Operations do not show in floor plan views.
That is why you will not be able to dimension them there either.

You could try converting the mesh into a morph.
Then you will see the cuts in plan.
I would keep a copy of the original mesh in a hidden layer so you can edit it as needed.
Sometimes it is not so easy to edit the morph as you want.

Barry.

Re: Documenting proposed site levels

Lingwisyer — Wed, 27 Jan 2021 01:34:31 GMT

Or you could use another mesh as your SOE operator using subtraction with upwards extrusion, then dimension that mesh instead?

Ling.

Re: Documenting proposed site levels

Josh Verran — Thu, 28 Jan 2021 22:16:46 GMT

Thanks for the feedback guys. Guess we'll keep plodding along with workarounds for now.

This is one of the aspects of Archicad (and other packages too) that surprises me.
It seems like such a fundamental requirement for documenting the construction of a building (the ability to be able to document siteworks, before the building is even established).
Yet the tools aren't up to the task.

A mesh tool that doesn't display in plan view, the way it does in all other views.
A level dimension tool that can't return the dimension level of the element it's associated too.

How does something like this get overlooked for so long?

Re: Documenting proposed site levels

Barry Kelly — Fri, 29 Jan 2021 00:52:54 GMT

Josh wrote:
A mesh tool that doesn't display in plan view, the way it does in all other views.
A level dimension tool that can't return the dimension level of the element it's associated too.

The mesh tool does display in the plan view as it does in the other views.
It is the Solid Element Operation that does not show.

If you edit the mesh by adding contours and adjusting levels, or in the example you show, cut a hole and add another mesh inside, you will see exactly what you want and you can use the level dimension tool.

Barry.

Re: Documenting proposed site levels

James B — Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:40:21 GMT

To cut into a Mesh, you could also try to use the Opening Tool (added in AC23).
Which you'll see on the Floor Plan.

I made a video early last year, you can skip towards the end.

Re: Documenting proposed site levels

Josh Verran — Mon, 01 Feb 2021 18:50:16 GMT

Barry wrote:

Josh wrote:
A mesh tool that doesn't display in plan view, the way it does in all other views.
A level dimension tool that can't return the dimension level of the element it's associated too.

The mesh tool does display in the plan view as it does in the other views.
It is the Solid Element Operation that does not show.

If you edit the mesh by adding contours and adjusting levels, or in the example you show, cut a hole and add another mesh inside, you will see exactly what you want and you can use the level dimension tool.

Barry.

Hi Barry

Thanks for your response and I hear what you're saying.
The point I was trying to make, is that in the elevations, sections, perspectives, 3D documents etc it is the mesh that is showing, not the SEO and it all looks as expected and intended.
It is the plan view that is the odd one out. One would expect the plan view to reflect.
In the Elevations, Sections etc, we are seeing the surface of the mesh using the defined settings of that surface, where the mesh is cut we see the building material of the mesh with its defined settings.

3D View 3D Document Elevation Section

Re: Documenting proposed site levels

Josh Verran — Mon, 01 Feb 2021 19:00:56 GMT

Plan View I was expecting Plan view we get Whilst the workarounds of drawing elements over can work it's not an efficient workflow.

In order to see the cut + fill in plan view as described you need to have SEO on and set the cover fill to match that of the element you are trying to indicate. Kind of drawing a fill over it.
The idea of not using SEOs and instead drawing new contours achieves a few requirements but then fails on others. New contours instead of SEOs would then mean you are limited to one surface, you can't then show the cut areas as earth/soil. Also the new contours are not often known. In the "Plan View Expected" above, we can see where the contours should be as the SEO has already been curved on the downward slope region, trying to work this out thou without SEOs would be time consuming.

As described earlier with the level dimesnion tool and setting the SEO to zero thickness means you can't batter edges as I have done on above examples.

I'm very grateful for the assistance, my frustration is more at how the software can't show the operations (not to be confused with operators) in plan view.

Why would we want to have an object appear in all other views as "operated on". But in plan view have zero ability to represent it's true shape?

Re: Documenting proposed site levels

Josh Verran — Mon, 01 Feb 2021 19:06:58 GMT

James wrote:
To cut into a Mesh, you could also try to use the Opening Tool (added in AC23).
Which you'll see on the Floor Plan.

I made a video early last year, you can skip towards the end.

Thanks James, I didn't realise the opening tool worked on meshes as well.
I think this will work in some situations.
You can't batter edges (angle/slope) or curve in plan view thou I think.

Re: Documenting proposed site levels

Barry Kelly — Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:17:56 GMT

Josh wrote:
The point I was trying to make, is that in the elevations, sections, perspectives, 3D documents etc it is the mesh that is showing, not the SEO and it all looks as expected and intended.

Josh wrote:
Why would we want to have an object appear in all other views as "operated on". But in plan view have zero ability to represent it's true shape?

Sections and elevation are all 3D views, just from a particular angle.
That is why the SEO results show as they can only be seen in 3D.

The 2D (plan) view is not a 3D view, it is somehow recreated based on the model elements, but it ignores SEOs.
I don't know the reason why but I suspect it is a legacy code thing, when Archicad was first written, there were no SEOs to worry about and the 2D view has always been a 'symbolic' view..
You will find new tools like the opening and multi-plane roofs do show the results of SEOs (or connections/trims) in plan.
Eventually the 2D view may be based entirely from the 3D.
Actually you can do this now with 3D documents - but the level dimension tool will not work.
You can copy and paste the mesh contours from the 3D Document back to the floor plan.
Not that that will help with the levels still.

Barry.

Re: Documenting proposed site levels

Josh Verran — Tue, 02 Feb 2021 04:40:09 GMT

Hi Barry

Hopefully one day it will be implemented.
I always find it funny (maybe frustrating is a better word) when I come across things like this from yonks ago.
Why isn't there more focus on "hey these workflows and/or tools are outdated and not functioning the same as newer tools, perhaps we should bring these up to spec before we go creating and developing new tools".
I know the development of these features is no simple task, probably a lot more complicated than I even suspect now. But, it's possible and other features are more complex.

Re: Documenting proposed site levels

vdentello — Thu, 04 Feb 2021 14:44:34 GMT

Josh wrote:
Hi Barry

Hopefully one day it will be implemented.
I always find it funny (maybe frustrating is a better word) when I come across things like this from yonks ago.
Why isn't there more focus on "hey these workflows and/or tools are outdated and not functioning the same as newer tools, perhaps we should bring these up to spec before we go creating and developing new tools".
I know the development of these features is no simple task, probably a lot more complicated than I even suspect now. But, it's possible and other features are more complex.

I do hope for that too. Yet the more i look into this problem i tend to believe it´s not implemented for it has a chance to backfire on performance due to 3 to 2D conversion, as may happen when you have a couple GDL objects that will use Project2 variants.

Funny thing: Roofs behave that way. They'll show SOE in plan.