Door frame thickness to respond to wall core in composites.

[Toni Mayerhofer]

Hi all.

I am doing residential buildings in Austria, it is standard here to document floor plans without showing wall finishes, ie brick internal wall, no plaster either side. I can use the different model views and composite walls to control this - with 10cm brick as the core and 1,5cm of plaster either side as finish, for internal walls, setting model view to 'without finihses'.

When I model a door in this wall, the frame wraps to the invisible finished face of the wall, but in reality, the door frame is installed on the brick core, and the wall is hard plastered up to the frame. I can reduce the frame thickness to zero, but it doesnt represent correctly.

Is there a way to have the door frame thickness respond to the wall core, rather than the wall finish (regardless of model view options)? Or do I have to use solid brick walls and accept that the internal spaces will be 3cm smaller than documented?

ideal solution: A hidden menu that tells the door tool to determine frame thickness based on A) wall overall thickness, B) wall withoutfininshes thickness, or C) wall core only thickness. I know how archicad loves burying obscure functions in odd places that you have to spend ages scouring for (I'm looking at you, 'show fill in wall opening' button). 

See attached screnshots.

using AC27, on windows, The door component seems to be a standard AC AUT component - Zargentür 1-Fl 27.

Michael   

Correct display of door frame wrapped to wall core in plan - modelled without finishes. in 3d views will show frame step and results in misaligned walls.

modelling with wall finishes, hidden using model display options - door frame wraps around ghost of finished wall thickness

setting frame depth to zero to simulate door frame face sitting flush to hard plaster. correct in model but not in plan, doesnt show thickness of frame hugging core.

Operating system used: Windows

[Benedek Gaszpor]

Hello @Toni Mayerhofer,

To my best knowledge what you are looking for is not available in the doors included in the basic library...

I think the closest you can take it is by turning the casings off and setting your frame to block style and oversize them...

Or by modelling the core and then the finishes separately... And I've just opened up a whole new can of worms with this...

(I understand that this is quite a bit of overengineering... and a metric ton of extra modelling and model maintenance work...)

If you do not wish to get into some GDL stuff I think you just have to live with it...
Or you might try out the Library Part Maker add-on... You might be able to create a door that works as you want it, without hardcore GDL.

But if you need a fully parametric solution I think you need to get on in the GDL action, or get someone to script it for you.

Maybe even modifying the existing door GDL...

Since I am only a mere novice in GDL, let me invite @runxel here.
Maybe he has some cool idea.

Cheers!

[Lingwisyer]

The required values are all available in GDL so it should be possible. If you do not need to be able to switch between having the casing inline with the finish and having it ontop of the finish, I suspect that you would only need a modification to the Casing macro.

Ling.

[runxel]

Uhhh, it's not really about GDL, is it?

@Toni Mayerhofer I think the real question here is why would you want to show the wall without finishes but with the casing on in the first place.

Why not reduce the LoD in the MVO? I think that would be a better approach.

Or change the "Zargentyp" to a "Blockzarge" instead of a "Umfassungszarge" – nothing's wrong with the display in my opinion. 

[Erwin Edel · Accepted solution]

I would argue: why model the finish. Which is our approach.

We need our documentation to have dimensions to walls without the plaster finish. I do not know of any BIM reason to model it either.

But other people might have other reasons to do things their way, of course. Ussually the finish needs to have a different classification, though, which generally means you need to model things seperately, which would also solve the issue.

[runxel]

Well there is a good reason, which is the correct determination of real net area.

I don't know how the Dutch are handling this, but in Germany, and Austria is quite close in many things, so I suspect they need to do the same, we need to give the area with respect to the finished structure.

It might not matter much with three rooms. But consider a whole apartment block – the difference is quite staggering.

[Toni Mayerhofer]

Yeah this is where I ended up. Thanks everyone for your sugestions!