topic Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills in Documentation

composite walls vs. simple wall fills

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:06:29 GMT

A Basic question about wall types:

We do a lot of TI work in 1/8" scale--elaborated space planning straight to construction. We use perhaps 10 different wall types and track unit costing on these.

In the past, we have used composite wall types but at 1/8th scale it doesn't print with clear distinctions and so have migrated to simpler fill type walls that can be output controlled (solid, cross hatch, patterned, etc) more easily.

So the question is: if one is not doing detail cuts or using the calculate function to keep a tally of the materials, why use the composite wall structures?

What am I missing? How are others handling wall types?

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

David Larrew — Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:00:33 GMT

Have you tried controlling the Composite Wall Fill appearance with "Display Options"?

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

Jacek — Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:06:05 GMT

Craig wrote:
A Basic question about wall types:

So the question is: if one is not doing detail cuts or using the calculate function to keep a tally of the materials, why use the composite wall structures?

I think you have answered your own question here. Do it only if you use the appropriate scale.

What am I missing? How are others handling wall types?

If you are using 8.1 -just got mine last night, you can change the display in the Display Options (!) Great stuff, you can have your composites and print the simple wall at 1/8" scale! Take a look at it.
Jacek

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

Karl Ottenstein — Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:13:55 GMT

~/archiben wrote:
composites are useful to use as a wall 'key' to ensure that all team-mates get the right pen weights/hatching/width correct from scratch - in some ways quicker to use for walls than favourites because they can be chosen directly from the info box.

also - by using composites for even single skin wall construction types, you can control the fill direction and ensure that the fill remains perpendicular to the wall at all times. very useful on a complex, non-orthoganal building.

(possible tip djordje? )

I'll second your own nomination! Sounds like two tips to me, and good ones at that. ;-)
Especially when combined with custom line types and pens for each line of a composite in 8.1 (not possible with an ordinary wall), there may be reasons for all walls to be done via composite types.

Also, if you want to change the pen weight or fill (for ex) for all 'frame 2x6 walls' for example - you would just change the composite - no need to select all such walls and edit. Consistency is guaranteed; no fear of having forgotten one wall somewhere.

Thanks Ben,

Karl

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

Djordje — Sun, 16 Nov 2003 05:06:21 GMT

Yes, QUITE a tip! Waiting for Jay to read it, then I will move it across

Karl wrote:
Especially when combined with custom line types and pens for each line of a composite in 8.1 (not possible with an ordinary wall), there may be reasons for all walls to be done via composite types.

Another reason is the control of the wall thicknesses; if you have to change a wall it is MUCH easier to change one composite than Find&Select through all the building(s).

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

Djordje — Sun, 16 Nov 2003 05:07:25 GMT

~/archiben wrote:
composites are useful to use as a wall 'key' to ensure that all team-mates get the right pen weights/hatching/width correct from scratch - in some ways quicker to use for walls than favourites because they can be chosen directly from the info box.

also - by using composites for even single skin wall construction types, you can control the fill direction and ensure that the fill remains perpendicular to the wall at all times. very useful on a complex, non-orthoganal building.

(possible tip djordje? )

~/archiben

By popular demand ans shameless self promotion gone to Tips&Tricks.

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

__archiben — Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:58:43 GMT

Djordje wrote:
By popular demand ans shameless self promotion gone to Tips&Tricks.

hehehe.

it's now a question of actually getting my team-mates to use them. harder than setting it all up in the first place, believe me.

~/archiben

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

Anonymous — Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:08:30 GMT

Thank you all. Interesting responses. It will change the way we do things in the office.

Two additional thoughts:

1. Perhaps in 8.2 it would be useful for walls have a scale dependant option much like doors and windows do now. Thus it could shift from a single fill in the composite to the multiple fill as the scale increases. This would be still more useful than the new 8.1 display options.

As an interrum, based upon your suggestions, I will set up some "dummy composite walls" that are graphically correct at small scale (and separately distinguishable from each other in black and white) but that don't have the materials composition accurately recorded.

2. regarding the forum-- when messages are to be upgraded to the "tip folder" for their usefulness, it would be good to move a copy rather than the original so the thread of the conversation isn't lost. (it took my feeble brain a minute to figure out that the referenced post had been moved)

again--thanks

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

SeaGeoff — Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:21:23 GMT

I didn't notice any new Display Options, just the new Combinations, which are AWESOME. Did I miss something?

I would love the ability to show only the core composites via Display Options (I currently do this with PM), but this would probably necessitate moving to two pull-downs, one for lines, one for fills.

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

Anonymous — Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:33:59 GMT

Craig

1. Perhaps in 8.2 it would be useful for walls have a scale dependant option much like doors and windows do now. Thus it could shift from a single fill in the composite to the multiple fill as the scale increases. This would be still more useful than the new 8.1 display options.

Slightly off thread: A workaround for walls that I use to give different features at different scales is with Hotlinked modules. If a composite wall (with the same name) is defined in both the source and the host files then you can alter the actual contents of the composite in each file independently (AC7.0v3)

So for example the apartment plans are in one file to be printed at 1:50 scale with detail in the composite walls. These are then Hotlinked into the overall floor plans which are printed at 1:100 with much more simple composite definitions (just the outline and fill)

This may help ....
regards

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

Anonymous — Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:35:51 GMT

sorry to confuse things---

in 8.1 there is increased adaptability in the display of composite structures. You can now vary the skin separator line weights.
It is not through "Display Options" though.
Go to: Options/Composite Structures/Edit skin and line weight.

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:16:06 GMT

Archiben wrote:
[also - by using composites for even single skin wall construction types, you can control the fill direction and ensure that the fill remains perpendicular to the wall at all times. very useful on a complex, non-orthoganal building. ]

This is a great reason for using composites.
I tried to implement it BUT.... it is not working in my version of 8.1. The radio buttons for orientation have no effect on the result. I did go back to V7.0 and it works fine there. Is this an 8.1 bug or what?

Can anyone else confirm this one way or the other?

(DISREGARD----my error. ops: )

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:26:46 GMT

Craig wrote:
Perhaps in 8.2 it would be useful for walls have a scale dependant option much like doors and windows do now.

This would be a tremendous improvement in the composites. Along with the new line & pen setting it would make them fully useful. I have long wished for the ability to define what wall fills display at what scales. At least I can revisit the disappearing pen trick; it should work now.

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

Djordje — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:51:16 GMT

Craig wrote:
I tried to implement it BUT.... it is not working in my version of 8.1. The radio buttons for orientation have no effect on the result. I did go back to V7.0 and it works fine there. Is this an 8.1 bug or what?

Construction fills are bitmap or vectorial?

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 06:29:29 GMT

Djordje wrote:

Construction fills are bitmap or vectorial?

Dang---I think you are correct to question this. I can't recreate the "defect" so it must have been me setting it to bitmap.

Re: composite walls vs. simple wall fills

Djordje — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:57:00 GMT

Craig wrote:
Dang---I think you are correct to question this. I can't recreate the "defect" so it must have been me setting it to bitmap.

Been there ...

PlotMaker 3.x tip: make sure that you always set the fills to keep the original settings! That way you can play with the graphic representation of the, for example, solid walls and vectorial ceiling or floor tiling fills ...