Q: What does "Volume, holes not reduced" mean?

[Anonymous]

While doing a few tests to make sure volumes of elements took into account SEOs, I saw this "Volume, holes not reduced" value. The cubes in the pic below are 1m x 1m x 1m, so they have no holes, but this value reports as 0.5 m3.

What does "Volume, holes not reduced" mean?

[Anonymous]

Also, I've also just noticed that "Surface 3D" is incorrect -- it should be 5.5m2, not 4.5m2.
Unless "Surface 3D" does not included any new surfaces created by SEOs? Which is a dumb -- to deduct what has been removed, but not include what has been added! How do I find the correct area of the surface?

[Laszlo Nagy]

About the Holes: The selected element is a Slab and Slabs can contain any number of Holes in them. Wherever it is saying "Holes" it means these optional holes you might create within a Slab.
But what you pointed out is valid: That 0,5 m3 value is incorrect. A Volume not reduced by holes should be at least as much a a Volume from which holes were reduced. So that value should be 0.75 m3 or more in general, its value should be 0.75 m3 in this case. This must be a bug which I will report to Graphisoft.

About Surface 3D: This value is the sum of the Top, Bottom and Edge surfaces. When calculating these edges it considers reductions to these surface by reason of SEO. You can see the the bottom surface is 0.5 m2, while the Edge surface is 3.0 m2. But these values return only the surfaces in the horizontal planes of the top and bottom surfaces, plus the vertical planes of the edges. So the size of those surfaces that are generated within the body of the Slab by reason of SEO are not reflected in these value.
In this sense the Surface 3D value is not a true analytical surface value of the Slab.

[Anonymous]

Wow. It seems like what you are saying is that neither volume nor surface area can be correctly calculated where SEOs are involved!?

This seems like a MAJOR issue, if GS is saying that ArchiCAD is supposed to be a good BIM application.

And I have only just looked at scheduling for the first time, and I find this. Blimey, what other defects await me? Is it even worth it, if I have to manually check everything for faults?

Also, while you're reporting the faults, you might also suggest that they change the phrase "Volume, holes not reduced" to "Volume, not reduced by holes" to accurately reflect what is meant, because their current phrase incorrectly implies a reduction in the holes, not a reduction in the volume by the holes.

Anyways, Laszlo, thanks again for the response. You are invaluable on this forum, and it's very comforting to know that you have the ear of GS.

[Barry Kelly]

peter_h wrote:
And I have only just looked at scheduling for the first time, and I find this. Blimey, what other defects await me? Is it even worth it, if I have to manually check everything for faults?

You were looking at the 'Element Information' which will be different to what you can get from the Interactive Schedules.
I am still not sure you will get exactly what you want though.
You will get correct volume and top, bottom and side areas but you still won't get much info on the surfaces cut by the SEO.
Seems the surfaces of SEO are ignored.

But I agree the Element Information should be showing the correct values and better worded headings.

Barry.

[Laszlo Nagy]

Pete,

Thanks for your kind words, and I will forward this to Graphisoft for their consideration.