Graphics Override of Composite Skins

[Anonymous]

Is it possible to override in plan the different skins of a composite wall or complex profile, or does the override apply to the entire composite or complex profile?

[Anonymous]

If you do that you no longer have 3D BIM elements to work with.

[squall_tmo]

They are right on the plan!

that is a way to show just a skin overwritten...
But you are free to create a "fake skin" fill, or to replace the skin you want to override with another wall (similarly to the suggestion that GRAPHISOFT gave about adding an insulation skin)...I just think that this could be a faster solution.

[Barry Kelly]

squall_tmo wrote:
I know that my answer is a little stupid, and maybe a little late too, but why don't you "explode" your plan into a Worksheet?

this way you can create a rule to override the skin you want.

That is not a stupid idea at all.
The only problem with worksheets (and details) is they are not 100% live and will only update to match the model when you tell them too.
So as long as you are disciplined and remember to 'Rebuild from source view' your worksheets, this should work well.

Barry.

[runxel]

You could also wiggle around with GO plus multiple pen sets.
It's tedious, tho, because it then works on a pen, rather than a material, and you would need different pen sets for every override-case.
(And you need different pens assigned at the Bmats as well, of course.)

[zoli79]

runxel wrote:
There is a very dirty workaround. Might not be suitable for production...
But it works.

Reading this I gave GO another chance with showing rated walls and slabs, but the only thing you can control in a selective manner is the background pen override. If you'd like to have a GO rule with fill type override it will still apply to the whole structure.
What I need is to apply a different hatch to certain building materials that are in rated elements (walls, slabs etc.). Now we control this by many different building materials and composites (although in reality they are the same (e.g. different building material for each rating type of a wood framing), but the number of composite structures are getting out of hand in projects, not to mention the graphic quality isn't the best, because of chaotic intersections.

Does anyone know if Graphisoft is planning to give more options for graphic overrides at composites?

[Erwin Edel]

You'll end up in workarounds, but if it happens to be the 'core' you want to override, you could make a view that shows only certain layers and only the core and then override what is happen there. Stack this view on top of your normal view on layout (two on top of eachother) so that you hide what you don't want to see. Works on paper and PDF, will look messy in DWG output.

I'd still work with different building materials if the actual material is different.

[zoli79]

Erwin wrote:
Stack this view on top of your normal view
[..]
I'd still work with different building materials if the actual material is different.

Yes, a double drawing on layout could be a solution. But I'd rather 2D anything than use double views. I had very bad experiences with stacked drawings, especially in larger teamwork projects with multiple users. Hard to manage, slow, someone forgets to move one of the drawings, not seeing the complete graphic output in one view etc.

The thing with building materials is that the actual material is the same. Ratings in reality apply to complete structures, not materials.
Edit: were you suggesting that I shouldn't use a different building material if the real material is the same? I'd love not to, that is the point and I'm currently looking into my options. Unfortunately GO isn't that magic wand yet, that many of us were hoping it is.

[Erwin Edel]

Nah, I meant if you have say some brickwork with different properties, I'd make a building material for each different type and thus end up with different composites.

We use 2D linework with specific line types for things like firerating. It's not linked to the model, but much clearer than giving the wall a colour, I agree. We'd still give the wall a fire rating for IFC export, but just use some 2D work for drawing communication in permit stage.

User error is allways a factor to consider, but we have a long standing practice of checking up on documentation before shipping off, though I recognise not every office works the same