Composite walls outside corners not displaying properly

[rm]

Hi -

Something tells me I just am missing some sort of preference setting. Please look at my attached image. None of my composite wall outside corners are closing completely when displaying true line weights. If I turn off true line weights, they look correct and close up properly

What am I missing here or doing wrong? BTW, if I don't use composite walls, using single fill walls, the corners also cleanup and close properly with true line weights selected.

[attachment=0]Screen Shot 2018-10-04 at 7.54.05 PM.jpg[/attachment]

Thanks for your input!

[KeesW]

Thanks Richard
Wouldn't it be better if Graphisoft fixed it? Couldn't they just reverse the change they made to AC21 to cause this problem?

[Richard Morrison]

I'd be thrilled if they went back to the AC21 way of doing things. I don't know why this change was made, and I can't think of any situations where this is even helpful.

[Erwin Edel]

I suspect it has to do with quantity take off somehow. I haven't bumped into this yet, since luckily we hardly ever have different pens for the 'front' and 'side'.

There are some more quirks though, for example: if you have a concrete structural wall setup with a high priority building material so that it cuts the lower priority non structural wall AND (logically) give that concrete wall a nice thick line, that nice thick line gets replaced by whatever line the non structural wall has when the concrete wall intersects it.

It's just the final touches to making your drawing look nice and at the end of the day I'll just live with it and not bother to mask it up with 2D patching, but the logic there is just flawed. If anything, the high priority wall should override any lower priority pens.

This corner solution makes no sense either.

All very annoying and reminds me of when suddenly all my terrain outlines disappeared from elevations because Boundary Display was finally working the way it was supposed to.

[Daniel Kovacs]

Hello everyone,

I just want to give you an update on the situation, and also ask for your input.

So the thing is that we don't want to remove this development, because it holds a lot of benefits, both visible and invisible (so it makes ARCHICAD more efficient and consistent in the background). From the visible side the 2D representation finally caught up with how the 3D worked for years now, so the floor plan representation is nicer.

We originally designed this change to not make a visible difference, but on the presumption that the wall-end line is used by most offices as cut-lines (just like the separators), so they have the same pens as the sides.

So, here's where I would like to ask for your input. chris021 has already pointed out a use of composites that can't really be solved any other way. So my question to you, is how do you use it?
What workflow requires you to have a different end-line?
Do you not handle end-lines as cut-lines? Or is it a local standard?

We would like to go forward designing a solution that will not break any of the currently designed workflows, but will give a solution that supports these workflows as well.

Thanks in Advance,

[Richard Morrison]

Personally, I never use it, and would prefer to just have the "Wall End Lines" selection override the composite layers' individual ends. (When "Wall End Lines" don't override, it is very confusing, and so what was the purpose?) I suggest adding a single addition to the the "Wall End Lines" of "Use Composite Layers" so that people have a choice. When any of the first four Wall End selections are selected, it would be as if there are no individual composite end lines. (i.e. AC21 version)

[KeesW]

It is now AC23 and this problem has still not been fixed. Yes I could use Richard's work around but why should users invent work arounds for things that used to work and now don't for no good reasons? I first raised this in 2018 and one of Graphisoft boffins agreed that it was a bug which would be attended to.

[KeesW]

Now AC24 - still not fixed!
Why should we need a work-around for a mistake that was created about 3 versions ago.
Graphisoft - please take some staff off exciting new things to fix bugs in current and recent versions!

[KeesW]

I've just reread dkovacs' response dated 8 Feb 2019 and make the following comments:
- The benefits of this change must be the invisible ones because no user has, so far, responded positively.
- The floor plan representation is NOT nicer. I don't like gaps in my lines at corners and no one I know would do so.

It is an architectural drafting convention to use a hierarchy of line weights to convey depth and relative importance of items within elements cut in section.Therefore wall outlines in plan are shown more boldly than other plan components. That is why we need to be able to create this without unsightly gaps.

[rm]

KeesW wrote:
I've just reread dkovacs' response dated 8 Feb 2019 and make the following comments:
- The benefits of this change must be the invisible ones because no user has, so far, responded positively.
- The floor plan representation is NOT nicer. I don't like gaps in my lines at corners and no one I know would do so.

It is an architectural drafting convention to use a hierarchy of line weights to convey depth and relative importance of items within elements cut in section.Therefore wall outlines in plan are shown more boldly than other plan components. That is why we need to be able to create this without unsightly gaps.

Agree, 100%

[Minh Nguyen]

Hi all,

Thank you for raising this issue once again and I am very sorry for the inconvenience!

As you may already know, this adjustment was made to have element junctions in 2D and 3D to be the same so schedules will be more accurate for quantity take-offs, unfortunately wall end lines resulted from this adjustment turned out to be difficult fix. Addressing it is a project-sized thing as many things need to be considered when we tackle this issue.

I have raised this issue once again (it got a new ID now, DEF-1763) with your comments, hopefully, we'll be able to correct it in the near future!

Thank you very much for your understanding!

Best regards,
Minh