Developing walls template and looking for advice

[Anonymous]

I am a new user having just switched from Acad to AC 11 - these forums have been really useful as I've been learning the program.

I do all residential work - I’m now setting up a template drawing and right now I’m working out how I want to handle walls. If anyone can offer any advice or insights, I’d be grateful – here’s what I’m thinking:

Walls (using composites, I think, but I’m looking at complex profiles too) will have a core that corresponds to the wood studs and then inner and outer layers for drywall and sheathing. All that doesn’t really show at ¼” scale but seems like it will be helpful for accurate sections.

I’ve worked out using different pen sets to get the lines heavy on the core or the outer lines depending on plan type. It would be nice if I could turn off the outer lines at times but I don’t see how that can be done except maybe with pen sets.

Then, I’m looking at the Cadimage accessories tool to add the outer shell – siding, stucco, brick etc. I like that they produce 3 dimensional materials. I have the demo version running right know and it seems to work but I do have concerns about it’s flexibility – it has brick/block option but no stone that I can see for instance.

So the questions that leap to mind are:

Is this level of detail workable & useful for residential scale projects?
How good is the cadimage accessory tools? What limitations have people run into?

Any insights are appreciated – as a new user, the manuals and other materials are great but they don’t tell you what the software won’t do or what roadblocks you hit 10 steps in to the process…..

[Anonymous]

Chris wrote:

I’ve worked out using different pen sets ....... depending on plan type. It would be nice if I could turn off the outer lines at times but I don’t see how that can be done except maybe with pen sets.

Using Pen sets that have pens assigned to white for objects that you want not to show is the route that I have chosen. It requires a good amount of organization and disciple to know what composite object belong with what color.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the input - I'm quickly learning that there are so many different ways to modify just the walls that keeping it organized is going to be a challenge - hopefully, once I have it all in a template file it will get easier.

I see that in the wall settings the 'cut surfaces settings' under 'floor plan and section' will override the pens I selected when defining the composite but that it will use the composite settings if I check 'use structure's settings'. The only difference I see is that each creates a different end condition

Is there a benefit to one appoach or the other - I would guess that using the composite settings is a more arganized approach but any input is much appreciated.

thanks

[Anonymous]

One of the great features of the composites is the way you can fine tune their appearance with their own pen settings. I strongly recommend setting these up as you want them and making a standard of not overriding them.

It does require a degree of planning and organization but it pays off in the long run. The good thing about it is that once the pens are set nobody has to mess with them. It is also a good idea to pick a series of pens that are used just for composites (and perhaps complex profiles). That way you can further control their appearance in various views/drawings.

The skin closure lines are also independently set in the composite, thus the different end conditions you have noticed.

[Anonymous]

Matthew wrote:
One of the great features of the composites is the way you can fine tune their appearance with their own pen settings. I strongly recommend setting these up as you want them and making a standard of not overriding them.

It does require a degree of planning and organization but it pays off in the long run. The good thing about it is that once the pens are set nobody has to mess with them. It is also a good idea to pick a series of pens that are used just for composites (and perhaps complex profiles). That way you can further control their appearance in various views/drawings.

The skin closure lines are also independently set in the composite, thus the different end conditions you have noticed.

Thanks again for the feedback - I've been looking at the complex profiles and based on that and the comments here, I think I'll plan on using the composites for most walls - the creation and control of them seems a little easier to manage. Although the option to set the reference line to the core as described in another thread would be nice.

I was wondering if I should set up pens just for walls (or for composites as you suggest) I guess that will avoid messing other elements up if I change around pen weights or colors.

[Anonymous]

Chris wrote:
I was wondering if I should set up pens just for walls (or for composites as you suggest) I guess that will avoid messing other elements up if I change around pen weights or colors.

Yes. It is best to have dedicated pens for specific functions. I use pen 1 for outline of cut elements in plan and section. Pen 2 is for fills in cut elements. I also typically use pens 80-89 for fills and separators in composites.

I posted a PDF of my standard pen table here some time ago.

[Anonymous]

Matthew wrote:

Chris wrote:
I was wondering if I should set up pens just for walls (or for composites as you suggest) I guess that will avoid messing other elements up if I change around pen weights or colors.

Yes. It is best to have dedicated pens for specific functions. I use pen 1 for outline of cut elements in plan and section. Pen 2 is for fills in cut elements. I also typically use pens 80-89 for fills and separators in composites.

I posted a PDF of my standard pen table here some time ago.

Thanks for the link - I'll check that out. I was working on this more last night and trying to get my head wrapped around the approach to layers and pens in archicad v. autocad (that I've used for the last 14 years) So far I like the new flexibility.

[Anonymous]

Chris wrote:
[Thanks for the link - I'll check that out. I was working on this more last night and trying to get my head wrapped around the approach to layers and pens in archicad v. autocad (that I've used for the last 14 years) So far I like the new flexibility.

Just wait - once you get into layers you will find that Archicad is terrible compared to Autocad. I cant believe you can delete a layer when it has objects on it! Lunacy!

And trying to tell what layer an object is on or changing the layer of several objects is also really clumsy. If your objects consist of lines, circles, objects, and say text you have to select the new layer you want to change these onto four times before you get everything onto that one layer, once for each type of object. Just makes using layers a real pain which is why I think most people dont bother. Which then makes using xrefs and hotlinked modeules a real pain as they use the same layers ie they dont bring in their own with them as Autocad does. Mean on complex jobs you have no idea which layers are used and which arent. You can think one layer is unused, delete it and then find half of a modeule gone further down the line somewhere.

In an office where you have trainees and assistants who like deleting things this is really worrying!

As you can tell from here and elsewhere I am not an Archicad fan and Im just trying to even up the balance on this one sided forum!

[TomWaltz]

nats wrote:
JAnd trying to tell what layer an object is on or changing the layer of several objects is also really clumsy.

I guess if you consider "hover over it and wait for the pop-up" clumsy, OK.

If your objects consist of lines, circles, objects, and say text you have to select the new layer you want to change these onto four times before you get everything onto that one layer, once for each type of object.

There's a command for that do to all selected elements in one shot. It's called "Edit Selection Set."

Just makes using layers a real pain which is why I think most people dont bother.

Actually, most people have a really well-organized, functional layer set. Just this one user does not. (He's in the middle of a troll post in another thread about how much he hates Archicad, and seems to enjoy showing off his lack of knowledge/ability, confusing "I can't" with "Archicad can't").

Which then makes using xrefs and hotlinked modeules a real pain as they use the same layers ie they dont bring in their own with them as Autocad does. Mean on complex jobs you have no idea which layers are used and which arent. You can think one layer is unused, delete it and then find half of a modeule gone further down the line somewhere.

This is completely inaccurate. Even if you accidentally delete a layer that has module/xref content, the next time you update from the source it will be recreated.

As you can tell from here and elsewhere I am not an Archicad fan and Im just trying to even up the balance on this one sided forum!

Lack of knowledge does not offer balance. All you are doing is showing your own lack of ability. I would hardly call the forum "one sided." Look around and you will find ample complaints about things that are actual limitations or poorly designed features, not just things that can be corrected with a little training or opening a user manual.

[Anonymous]

nats wrote:

Chris wrote:
[Thanks for the link - I'll check that out. I was working on this more last night and trying to get my head wrapped around the approach to layers and pens in archicad v. autocad (that I've used for the last 14 years) So far I like the new flexibility.

Just wait - once you get into layers you will find that Archicad is terrible compared to Autocad. I cant believe you can delete a layer when it has objects on it! Lunacy!

And trying to tell what layer an object is on or changing the layer of several objects is also really clumsy. If your objects consist of lines, circles, objects, and say text you have to select the new layer you want to change these onto four times before you get everything onto that one layer, once for each type of object. Just makes using layers a real pain which is why I think most people dont bother. Which then makes using xrefs and hotlinked modeules a real pain as they use the same layers ie they dont bring in their own with them as Autocad does. Mean on complex jobs you have no idea which layers are used and which arent. You can think one layer is unused, delete it and then find half of a modeule gone further down the line somewhere.

In an office where you have trainees and assistants who like deleting things this is really worrying!

As you can tell from here and elsewhere I am not an Archicad fan and Im just trying to even up the balance on this one sided forum!

Nats,

Once again you are speaking out of ignorance. You should stop proclaiming "facts" about ArchiCAD's weaknesses that are simply wrong. It is clear from your various posts here that you have no desire to learn how to use ArchiCAD properly so I am not going to waste my time refuting your false statements.

Yes, this is a one sided forum in that it consists almost entirely of people trying to make the best use of ArchiCAD that they possibly can. That is it's purpose. I think you would find that the Revit and AutoCAD forums are similarly "one sided". Trying to justify your troll-like behavior as adding balance is ridiculous. There are plenty of us here who criticize many features (or the lack thereof) in ArchiCAD, but we do it out of actual knowledge of the program.

Should you decide that you want to actually learn how to use the program productively and efficiently there is lots help here, but inciting flame wars with false statements is offensive to those of us who donate our time to make this place a useful and valuable resource for those who have real problems getting ArchiCAD to work the way they want it to. It is clear that you are fabricating and imagining problems because you don't want ArchiCAD to work. Until this changes please stop wasting our time.