Door threshold credibility gap

[Anonymous]

Let me first explain how this project is set up;

Finished floor level is set at '0'. Slabs of 15mm thickness are used to create various floor coverings such as wood, carpet etc. In 2D 'cover fills' generate our floor finishes drawing, and in 3D we get an accurate visual representation of floor finishes from room to room using this method.
Another slab is used for an entire floor area to indicate a structural slab in section. The top of the structural slab is set at -15mm.
The walls are set at -15mm up to ceiling height. This however means that when you place a door, I get this problem of not being able to 'see' my floor coverings meeting in the doorway. Why?
Lifting the door up to +15mm means I can see wall. Am I meant to be using this combination of elements in a different way to eliminate this problem?

This is in AC18. Thanks in advance.

[alemanda]

uisanata wrote:
In real life you don't have just 1 type of wall and 1 type of slab in the entire building.

You're right.
But I prefer to follow the logic to divide the slabs by tipology.
I mean I prefer to use different slabs for different purpose.
One slab for structural purpose,
one/two/three/more for flooring
one/two/three/more for false ceiling ...

Even you used more elements but they are divided according the logic of the composites. It's another logic. You prefer that one and I prefer mine.
I'm sure that in case of BIM model built for all disciplines (structures, MEP, architecture, Interior design) "my" logic allows me to control better the model ...
Just point of views.

[sinceV6]

uisanata wrote:
Here's a solution with several composites. Just 1 composite is not possible and I did not say it could be possible. In real life you don't have just 1 type of wall and 1 type of slab in the entire building.

This was done in AC15, with SEO. With BM would be easier.

THAT was the point: One composite to keep the same core is not possible. I'm sorry. I assumed you could do it when you said "you can have just one".

The issue here is that we're falling on the same page: the core of the composites is not a single one, and when exported it is presented as several elements. I'm having the same issue. Although this way is faster, I think alemanda's approach is more correct.

alemanda wrote:
...I prefer to follow the logic to divide the slabs by tipology.
I mean I prefer to use different slabs for different purpose.
One slab for structural purpose,
one/two/three/more for flooring
one/two/three/more for false ceiling ...

Even you used more elements but they are divided according the logic of the composites. It's another logic. You prefer that one and I prefer mine.
I'm sure that in case of BIM model built for all disciplines (structures, MEP, architecture, Interior design) "my" logic allows me to control better the model ...
Just point of views.

Amazing comment.

I've been playing around with a mixed solution: a main composite that is the most used through the project (or even per-story, as ground story, middle stories and top stories require a specific one) and then SEO out other composite slabs that define smaller areas. Allows for lesser slabs to manage and keeps a single core.

Best regards.

[Anonymous]

Hello, I'm back with my other log-in now.

I'm quite pleased that I inadvertently started a discussion on this. I appreciate the work around uisanata posted.

BUT, I still feel there is work required from Graphisoft on this - because I personally believe for a whole number of reasons, the most intuitive way for the 3D model to be put together is for it to parallel the reality of construction as closely as possible. In large part AC does do this of course.

"Would you find it useful if the skins of a composite could be manually adjusted as if they were independent slabs or walls ?"
+1!

We have the same issue with walls that someone else was describing; take a wall composed of sinusoidal sheeting, insulation, plasterboard internally as an example. If you've a situation where the outer sheeting runs up to coping height, the internal plasterboard stops well short of this to meet a ceiling - that isn't possible to do with a composite (as far as I'm aware?). So you either need to do it with two separate walls set at different heights, or (my recommendation) you do it with a complex profile. Complex profiles are great of course, but it's often fiddly and time consuming in comparison with the beloved wall tool.