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.

[sinceV6]

uisanata wrote:

alemanda wrote:

uisanata wrote:
It's true that you should model the way it's built, but there is no reason why you shouldn't use the composites. Two slabs on top of each other must be a pita to model / modify / update. The same with wall finishings. How do you insert a window or a door in multiple walls?

Reality is usually much more complicated than composites possibilities.

Multiple walls = multiple doors. For example when we model stone cladding we insert a door in the block work and an empty door(I mean just the hole)in the cladding (which isusually done with a double wall parallel to the main block work wall)

In this way we can control the model in a perfect way. Of course we have an addintional amount of work. But usually we do this when we have to produce construction drawings.

That's blasphemy!
Just kidding 😉
I am currently working on a project with 8000 doors. Imagine modelling another 8000 ! and documenting all those slabs and walls in 5000+ construction details....
I must contradict you, composites are working just fine, if you know what to use them for. I don't think that GS guys created such a great tool if slabs were better. How do you manage the line between 2 slabs in section view? Which line is visible and which is not? How do you intersect slabs wth walls and roofs? Don't you use the priorities?

Try it, it will grow on you...!

dan_g wrote:
Otherwise how do you deal with changes in covering from room to room? Answer: You have a tonne of fragmented structural elements. Confusing if your looking to BIM/IFC the project outside of your office.

Hello everyone.

I have to agree with alemanda and Dan on this one. This is why AC and GS should make parametric sketching one of the top priorities. It was recently mentioned somewhere else the wish for per-skin editing, as issues that arise with composites are getting more common these days as models get more complex and detailed.

In the most simple scenario, in a house with concrete structure (slabs), you may have several finishes on top (let's assume two: inside floor and outside terrace floor) and two finishes on bottom side (inside and outside). Depending on the combination of spaces across stories, one would need several composites to accommodate for the possibilities, and the need for several structure (concrete slabs) elements is a must; like noticed, it creates confusion as to why have 3 or 4 structural elements defining the one-and-the-same slab (just because of the finishes?!?).

Parametric relationships between elements would solve this easily and in some cases would render the partial structure display useless (using layer combos, although the simplicity of it would be lost). Make one concrete slab and based on its boundaries define top finishes and bottom finishes (priority based), independent -but linked at the same time- to the structural core.

As for doors and windows in multiple parallel walls... well... the objects' (and the whole modelling paradigm for that matter) would need to be redefined to simple solids and voids; in the sense that any door represents a void that would extend from the inside plane of the interior wall to the outside plane of the exterior finish wall.

Oh... i just dream.

Best regards.

[Steve Jepson]

alemanda,

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

[Nuge]

alemanda,

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

I would

Nuge

[Ernest Atanasiu]

laszlonagy wrote:

uisanata wrote:
I am currently working on a project with 8000 doors. Imagine modelling another 8000 ! and documenting all those slabs and walls in 5000+ construction details....

Just out of curiosity: how large is that project in terms of square meters?

300.000 sqm.

[Ernest Atanasiu]

sinceV6 wrote:
why have 3 or 4 structural elements defining the one-and-the-same slab (just because of the finishes?!?)

You're funny.
Why have 3 or 4 slabs defining the one-and-the-same object, when you can have just one?

The wall/door solution is just as easy: profiles.

I am not trying to convince you, you model the way you want after all. I know of architects who draw the floor plans separately from the elevations and sections, because they are not 'satisfied' with the results of AC. I am at the opposite end: if I can do it in less clicks then and only then I'm truly happy.

[sinceV6]

uisanata wrote:

sinceV6 wrote:
why have 3 or 4 structural elements defining the one-and-the-same slab (just because of the finishes?!?)

You're funny.
Why have 3 or 4 slabs defining the one-and-the-same object, when you can have just one?

You're probably missing the point.
Please share a solution using a single composite that accommodates different finishes and levels grouped by arrow color in attached section scheme; so that the core/slab is only one...
maybe I'm missing something.
I apologize if I misunderstood what others are saying regarding composites and multiple elements.

[alemanda]

Steve wrote:
alemanda,

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

It would be useful to have clean plans and sections.
For Modellini I prefer use different elements. I control them better.
More work but much more control.
I repeat that in any case the level of model detail depends on the purpose of the 3d BIM model.

[alemanda]

sinceV6 wrote:
...
Please share a solution using a single composite that accommodates different finishes and levels grouped by arrow color in attached section scheme; so that the core/slab is only one...
maybe I'm missing something.
I apologize if I misunderstood what others are saying regarding composites and multiple elements.

+1

[Ernest Atanasiu]

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.

[Ernest Atanasiu]

and the composites: