topic Re: Composites-Are you using them and how? in Documentation

Composites-Are you using them and how?

Dave Jochum — Wed, 31 May 2023 08:18:56 GMT

There have been several discussions on this forum about composites, and they've generated more than a few polls and wishes. I'm still struggling, however, to find the best method of creating walls that need a minimum of patching in plan and section until GS improves the tools.

Duane Valencia stated at ACUW that he doesn't use composites due to the cleanup problem. Hopefully, Duane, you've recovered and can chime in. I didn't get a chance to view your drawing sets after hearing that comment. To Duane and others who don't use composites, how do you set dimensions if there is no core (framing) defined?

How are people getting composites to cleanup with a minimum of fuss?

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 05:46:52 GMT

I erased all the composites that came with AC and spent part of an afternoon building wall, slab and roof composites that I will actually use. I made the mistake of doing this with the stock pen set. Now I have seen some other templates and the pen sets they provided and am debating which direction to go. It seems that the use of composites is mostly helpful in sections and details or to describe thick walls with cavities ect. I have noticed that almost all plans describing wood framed structures use 2 lines representing the core of the wall and thats it. This is 90% of the type of work we do. I would definitely like to see the composites as a display option in the future.

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

Dave Jochum — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 06:33:17 GMT

Flamer wrote:
It seems that the use of composites is mostly helpful in sections and details or to describe thick walls with cavities ect. I have noticed that almost all plans describing wood framed structures use 2 lines representing the core of the wall and thats it. This is 90% of the type of work we do. I would definitely like to see the composites as a display option in the future.

I need to show exterior wall composition in plan as well as section. A house I'm working on at the moment is not untypical: I have both stucco and stone finish exteriors, and gyp bd. and wood interiors. If it weren't for the problems caused by placing doors and windows, and punching other openings, I'd be tempted to build the layers as separate walls, but of course that is not an option.

I just spent several hours (unbillable ) changing my composites, moving the reference line (after which I realized I could have done so without moving the wall ), and reversing all the materials. Wall cleanup is significantly better, until I have to deal with all the thickened walls.

Bottom line is we need much better wall tools. I'd still like to hear how others ore dealing with this, though.

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

Vitruvius — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:08:58 GMT

I like to keep composites very simple - ie. masonry walls hatched and frame walls double lined. I only show insulation in larger scale details.

That being said, you still get some funny intersections which don't clean up properly. I just use a fill and "patch" the one or two instances where this happens. It's far quicker than trying to "trick" the AC engine into doing it automatically and the intersections still look fine in 3D.

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

__archiben — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:09:12 GMT

dave

not quite what you're asking, but a useful function that i find using composite walls:

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=567

~/archiben

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

gpowless — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:46:53 GMT

I changed all the cores of my wood walls to the same fill type - 2X4 Stud.

I have not had an instance where the walls will not clean up properly. Even in non-standard intersections, such as curves, and angled t's the drawing will eventually clean up in plan. I do use the Tools:Modify Wall:Reference Line alot and sometimes it requires a bit of playing with the lines on various walls to get a correct match.

When doing sections, the only real touching up that I need to do is at the Header joist (rim joist), foundation / exterior wall areas. I am so accustomed now to doing a quick patch over the area that it barely takes 20 or 30 seconds to correct. Once that is complete, the wall details, such as plates headers and anchor bolts are added from the MSA library.

I often receive complements on the presentation and accuracy of my working drawing sets.

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

James Murray — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:48:55 GMT

Masonry walls: Composite skins for concrete, brick, stone, block. Airspace is not shown in the composite; we add the air width to the stone/brick, then split/change the fill in details.

Stud walls: (3) skins of Empty Fill. 1/2" GWB or plywood, 3 1/2" or 5 1/2" stud, 1/2" GWB. The skin lines are set to 'hide' in the composites. (This is different from using a white pen, and it can only be set in the composite, not in the wall settings.) The skin intersections don't clean up well, but the lines are hidden so you don't care. If you use a different fill for the stud (eg, Empty/Air/Empty), the plans will clean up better, but the sections become the problem. Better, IMHO, to do matching skins, which clean up in section, and use 'hide' to handle the bad intersections in plan.

(The prerequisite for this is to not want the GWB line in plan, which I think is definitely correct at 1/4".)

Joist Decks: (2) skins of empty fill. 3/4" sheathing, then whatever you joist depth is. We keep various composites around for different TJIs & 2x_s. Again, we change the 3/4" skin to plywood in the detail drawing. We do not include finish floor material in the composite; we want to vary it for rendering. We also don't include GWB underneath for the ceiling. This way, our walls are framing height and our slabs are framing thickness.

Roofs: No composite. Just an Empty Fill with a thickness of rafter+sheathing. There's no reason in principle you couldn't handle it like the joist deck. Maybe next new project.

In summary, our poche consists of Empty, concrete, and masonry. Everything else is added in details.

The fundamental problem with composites is the lack of scale sensitivity. That's why we have to draw the sheathing in later, and it's why we have to worry about cleanup. With scale sensitivity, we could just say at 1/4", stud walls are all empty, cleans up like a non-composite wall. (Of course, core dimensioning must remain.)

The scale thing is Matthew's pet wish and he's probably preparing a post as we speak, so I'll leave it there.

Dave, I saw you at ACUW but never got a chance to introduce myself properly. Hope to meet you next time.

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:16:25 GMT

I have a copy of "Empty Fill" which I call "! Section Fill" that I use for all components of frame construction. For example: a 2x4 interior wall is made up of three "! Section Fill" skins at 1/2", 3 1/2" & 1/2" representing GWB, (Gypsum Wall Board not George W, Bush) 2x4 stud, GWB respectively. The reason I make all the skins the same is that I don't want the details showing up at small scales and they don't clean up properly for large scales in section anyway. I use the composites instead of simple walls so that I can dimension to the structural core.

I also use the "! Section Fill" for all framed floors & roofs as well as cornices & interior trim so that I get a clean empty outline in section to which I can add notes and fills to produce the section details.

Masonry and concrete I draw with representative fills since they do show at small scales (1/4" & 1/8", 1:50 & 1:100) and I can get them to section properly.

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:29:13 GMT

Yeah, what James said...

Scale sensitivity for composites is a biggie!

Of course it will only be useful if they clean up properly in section. Which also means that we need the ability to define edge conditions for slabs to show the brick, stone or such at the exterior.

And another thing...

How about dissimilar fills separated in section by something OTHER than the section outline pen! Does anyone actually want a big fat line separating adjoining fills? The simplest thing would be to select a pen for this purpose in the section tool settings.

(I think this stuff is already in the wish list, but I guess I'll have to check when I can find the time.)

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

SeaGeoff — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:06:43 GMT

As a work-around while waiting for improved Display Options, I use a PlotMaker method for controlling composite display. I have five pens dedicated to the lines used in composites. I always use the same pen for specific purposes like non-structural skin, structural skin, framing, etc. This allows me to globally change the line weight structure of all composites in AC as well as perform drawing specific adjustments in PM like hiding the non-structural skins.

Matthew wrote:
Scale sensitivity for composites is a biggie!

No, please! Display Options is the appropriate way to control the appearance of composites. Scale sensitivity sounds great but eliminates the possibility of having one plan show skins while another plan, at the same scale, shows only cores. Perhaps you never want to do this but why limit other peoples’ options when using Display Options is just as easy, is more flexible, and is consistent with the way other attributes are handled?

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:15:28 GMT

You're right Geoff. Display options also need to be considered.

The whole matter is rather complex though since the settings will vary with different composites. The problem with making the settings in the composites is that they become global in all views. The (potential) problem with using the display options is that they affect all the composites.

The issue is how to permit both settings by view and settings by composite without tying people's brains in knots.

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

SeaGeoff — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:06:09 GMT

Matthew wrote:
The issue is how to permit both settings by view and settings by composite without tying people's brains in knots.

OK, are you saying that in one view I might want some composites controlled by the Display Option settings while others aren’t while in another view it would be different ones that conformed while still others are free?

I know I try to position myself as the champion of flexibility and consistent interface but if you are really suggesting this wouldn’t it be easier to do as other CAD apps do and make it possible for all kinds of sub-structures to have their own layers? Parts of composites and library parts could all have layers independent of their master layer. Each Quickview could then be saved with minute control over things like mullions, hardware, wall composites, stair rails, etc. When I switched to AC I was surprised that this wasn’t possible. After a time it was a relief. Talk about out of control layer proliferation and brain knots.

Please give an example of what you’re getting at.

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:15:58 GMT

I've got it Geoff!

View scripts

I have often posted about the powerful View Filters in speedikon. This would be another step in providing that functionality.

The idea would be to have the ability to add a script to a particular view which would allow the fine tuning of composites, etc. within the view. If this were only to govern the composites then it could be a graphical interface where you could specify the appearance of each one. Since the view also defines the scale this takes care of the scale sensitivity. The scripting approach would have the advantage of being able to copy/paste between views.

NO WAIT! There is a better way. A dialog to create named sets of display options for the composites (similar to the Layer Combinations). This way a Composite Display Setting could be easily selected for each view.

Something like this would be the best solution since it would add the capabilities without increasing the complexity of the basic functions. The new feature would not change the default behavior of the program at all but would be available for those who want it.

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

SeaGeoff — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:21:06 GMT

Matthew wrote:
A dialog to create named sets of display options for the composites (similar to the Layer Combinations). This way a Composite Display Setting could be easily selected for each view..

Great idea, glad you thought of it. But how is this different than including control of composite appearance in the current Display Option settings, which is really just a matter of expanding the “Construction Fills” options by splitting them into two pull downs, one with fill options and the other with line options including the new “Core Only” selection. Isn’t this all we really need? It’s already been the subject of two recent polls, http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=1876&highlight=core & http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=854&highlight=core

I think getting the composites to join the way we all want them to (including in section) will prove harder to implement than this simple request.

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:45:12 GMT

Geoff wrote:
But how is this different than including control of composite appearance in the current Display Option settings, which is really just a matter of expanding the “Construction Fills” options by splitting them into two pull downs, one with fill options and the other with line options including the new “Core Only” selection.

It is different by allowing settings for each composite. For example: at 1/4" scale a frame wall with brick veneer should display the brick but the rest of the detail; at 1/2" scale the air space might appear while the sheathing and GWB remain hidden; at 1 1/2" scale the full detail of the composite is shown: a simple concrete wall would show the same at all scales: an interior framed wall would only have two settings; with and without the GWB shown.

You see, I am trying to imagine the most comprehensive approach that would serve all possible needs without adding complexity at the top level. I am getting very tired of incomplete features and I certainly don't want patches on top of work-arounds.

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

Dave Jochum — Thu, 01 Apr 2004 03:11:50 GMT

Thanks, everybody, for all the responses. Some great ideas from seasoned veterans. I have also been eliminating the skin lines and using 50% fills in the skins as a new wall (to distinguish from the (E) empty skin walls.) There are still significant cleanup problems where they meet masonry and stucco'd veneer walls. I also dislike having to create a new composite for every wall thickness that occurs in a house. I have about 10 in a current project--and many won't be used in subsequent designs.

James--I'm sorry I didn't get to meet you. Unfortunately, the font selection for the name tags was not readable from further than a couple of feet away, so it was hard to find familiar names. I tried looking for faces that matched avatars, but that proved difficult also.

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

Dave Jochum — Thu, 01 Apr 2004 03:14:18 GMT

~/archiben wrote:
dave

not quite what you're asking, but a useful function that i find using composite walls:

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=567

~/archiben

Very good--thank you.

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Apr 2004 03:23:24 GMT

As I have expressed numerous times GS missed the boat and not because they did not get the point but because they had no resources to address the issue: TO MAKE THESE OPTIONS AND ALL THE REST AN ATRIBUTE OF THE LATER GROUPING.

And now we have a maze of oncoordinated features with an opake structure.

Thank you GS, you realy did it " bravo"

You're right Geoff. Display options also need to be considered.

The whole matter is rather complex though since the settings will vary with different composites. The problem with making the settings in the composites is that they become global in all views. The (potential) problem with using the display options is that they affect all the composites.

The issue is how to permit both settings by view and settings by composite without tying people's brains in knots.
_________________
Matthew Lohden

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

Anonymous — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:55:50 GMT

Dave wrote:
I also dislike having to create a new composite for every wall thickness that occurs in a house. I have about 10 in a current project--and many won't be used in subsequent designs.

If they're new walls, they SHOULD all have their own composites - you need to know what walls you're putting in. However, if they're just part of the existing, what we do is use a 75% fill wall type (not a composite) and just adjust the thickness to what it measures out to in field. That way I don't end up creating all those composites, and keeps me from having the wall show too much detail in plan/section, and makes it easy to see what's new and existing to remain. Same idea with demo walls (different settings though).

That's IF I understood what you were saying...

Re: Composites-Are you using them and how?

Dave Jochum — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 05:59:33 GMT

Sergio wrote:
Dave wrote:
I also dislike having to create a new composite for every wall thickness that occurs in a house. I have about 10 in a current project--and many won't be used in subsequent designs.
If they're new walls, they SHOULD all have their own composites - you need to know what walls you're putting in.

No, in my 1/4" plans I don't show gyp board and framing. I show a new wall with a 50% fill for all three skins and no separator lines. The special wall sizes I'm referring to have voids, i.e., gyp. bd./studs/air space/studs/gyp. bd. They vary in dim. from f.o. GB to f.o. GB. There's no reason to have a series of composite walls to handle these conditions except that AC requires it. I don't have AC open and I'm about to turn into a pumpkin or I'd take a screen shot.