Intentionally create Lines between Elements w/ same Surfaces

[JaredBanks]

So coplanar elements with identical surfaces merge in elevation so that there faces read as one. This is a good thing.

BUT...

what about when you don't want there? For instance modeling framing, I want all the elements to be the same Building Material and Surface, but I want each element to read as discrete.

Anyone know how to make this happen?

I've thought about Complex Profiles with curved corners, but that is tricky, not real, and works great in one direction but gives extra lines in the other direction, plus when you look at the ends of the elements they aren't rectangular.

I could just fake it by changing surfaces of adjoining materials, but that isn't efficient enough.

Thoughts?

[Erwin Edel]

The smallest distinction I have besides name is a difference in intersection priority. Another example would be having different types of concrete material. Using the same fill, same surface, but different priorities.

[Barry Kelly]

KeesW wrote:
If you create materials with different names, doesn't AC automatically create unique numbers for it.If so, do you also need to allocate different colours or will the distinctive names do the job?

Yes creating a new material will create an attribute with a new attribute index number.
The index numbers are always unique but I don't think you can have two attributes with exactly the same name either.

Archicad really doesn't care about the name, it is the index number that it is actually using but from a user's view we don't see that number.

The materials can have exactly the same colours, vectorial fills, textures, etc., but because they are 2 separate materials with 2 unique index numbers they will be treated as completely different.

Barry.

[JaredBanks]

If this were ArchiCAD 16 or earlier, I think the multiple Surfaces would be the right solution—remember we can't say Materials anymore! But that's not very-BIM centric. And to do that with every piece of lumber in a house gets too cumbersome. I am hoping for an automatic solution that lets me keep everything the same Surface and BMat. Otherwise I'm copying and changing Surfaces all the time. Don't want that.

I was thinking about making all my Complex Profile rectangular sections clipped 1/16" or less at the corners. The angle will create three lines at each joint but it'll be so small it'll merge into 1. That works for columns and beams, but not roofs or slabs. since CPs don't work for those.

I can solve the roofs and slabs by setting all the edges of the roofs and slabs to 89.9. This will be impossible to see, doesn't affect top surface area, and I don't care about the slight decrease in volume (which would be negligible anyways). But it will create a line between elements.

For the columns and beams, I'm also exploring setting the layers to wire frame. Since I'm not seeing elements behind elements (for another reason), wireframe would work. And, FYI, setting to wireframe creates outlines of the elements in 2D and ignores surfaces. Try it out. Not sure if that'll create other issues for me down the line. So might lean towards Complex Profiles with clipped corners.

[Barry Kelly]

JaredBanks wrote:
I was thinking about making all my Complex Profile rectangular sections clipped 1/16" or less at the corners. The angle will create three lines at each joint but it'll be so small it'll merge into 1. That works for columns and beams, but not roofs or slabs. since CPs don't work for those.

This will work for profiles stacked on top or next to each other.
But not for those placed end to end.
You'll still need different surfaces.

You'll be glad to know in 18 that a single profile can be split and use the same Building Materials in the fills and the lines between will remain.
So the old 'cross on a beam' problem can be solved just by splitting the profile fill - no need to change materials.

Still has a problem joining two separate elements though.
19 maybe?

Barry.

[JaredBanks]

end to end. Crap. You're right. I meant to double check the like-fills not merging in a Complex Profile today, then I forgot. Thanks for the confirmation. That will be wonderful for a lot of graphics.

Fortunately for this project, the sectional qualities aren't an issue. But end to end is... Damn. I think that once again suggests wireframe for plates... that might be infrequent enough that I could handle with a different surface. Need to run the first test.

Thanks.