Composites-Are you using them and how?

[Dave Jochum]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Dave Jochum]

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.

[Vitruvius]

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.

[__archiben]

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

[gpowless]

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.

[James Murray]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.)

[SeaGeoff]

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?