Materials, composites+intersection priorities

[Anonymous]

Is it me or has GS made a bit of an error in assigning intersection priorities to materials when in fact they should be assigned to each construction element and the skins of composite structures?

Does any one know why its better for materials to carry the IP parameter or why GS chose not to assign to wall, slab, roof etc elements?

Seems to me this would be far more logical, am I wrong?

-Your custom made composite structures could have IP values assigned to each skin.

-When you create a construction element that isn't a composite structure or from your favourites list, you either assign an IP value, or a default one is assigned.

-there could be a dedicated parameter transfer tool to inject IP values across construction elements that share the same IP value, to save time.

Am I the only one that really likes the IP idea but feels its some how not implemented correctly, is this the reason why?

---------------

thought experiment:

Imagine if you created a project from scratch, assigning IP values to construction elements until your IPs are correct.
Thats it, they are set.
You can now change materials,fills, finishes, insulation, etc test out different materials across the project without disturbing your carefully worked out IPs.

Isn't this far more logical in terms of work flow?

[Barry Kelly]

I didn't like this when it first happened either.
I had all my composite walls set up just as I liked.
Some used the same skin material (fill) but had different strengths so they joined as I like.

Now with the Building Materials I had one material with one strength and I couldn't control this in my composites.
So I just made multiple BMs with different strengths and used those in the composites.

I guess the idea is that you have a material (say concrete) that has a certain strength.
It doesn't matter if it is in a wall, a slab or a roof it is still concrete and it should join with all other concrete and should be automatically stronger or weaker than other materials.
But this is too simplistic.
You will still need concrete structural, concrete cavity fill, concrete footing, concrete floor slab, etc., etc.
So you can set different strengths for each so they connect as you want with other elements.

Luckily GS increased the strength priority numbers from 0-16 to 0-999 so we have a better chance at getting them to work together.
Also remember that composites and the old intersection priorities only worked for walls, slabs and roofs.
Now the BMs work also with columns, beams, shells, morphs & mesh.
Not all of these interact with each other automatically but hopefully GS have plans to implement this as well as using BMs in objects (including stairs).

Barry.

[Anonymous]

Hi Barry

I do like IP very much, I think the idea is great and congratulate GS for continued evolution of AC. I try to use it as much where possible so that my details as as "live" as possible.

Im just postulating that its possibly been incorrectly implemented.

Again, trying to understand why IP parameter is applied to materials and not to construction elements + skins (as well as columns, beams, shells, morphs & mesh)

this seems far more logical to me, in terms of overall work flow.

Would be interested to hear peoples thoughts specifically on why it is better that IP is currently applied to materials and not construction elements.

[sinceV6]

Barry wrote:


... but hopefully GS have plans to implement this as well as using BMs in objects (including stairs).

Barry.

Not to hijack, but +1.
I hope that the way doors work with finish skins on slabs (that they cut walls al the way to the core) is a proof of concept that IP can -and should- be extended to GDL as well. All in all, while I like the flexibility that floor plan views vs other model views (as in you can tweak the appearance of an object in 2D but rest of views are from its 3D), I really think it is time for a paradigm change in this regard, and truly have a 3D model that you cut and slice to get your desired views... and Building Materials and Intersection Priorities are a key stone to how elements interact with each other. I find the IP system pretty logical.

strawbale wrote:

-Your custom made composite structures could have IP values assigned to each skin.

-When you create a construction element that isn't a composite structure or from your favourites list, you either assign an IP value, or a default one is assigned.

-there could be a dedicated parameter transfer tool to inject IP values across construction elements that share the same IP value, to save time.

...trying to understand why IP parameter is applied to materials and not to construction elements + skins (as well as columns, beams, shells, morphs & mesh)

Unless I'm not understanding the point, all these are already there.
Custom composite structures have IP values assigned to each skin, based on the BM selection.
Construction elements that are not composites, have an IP assigned through their associated BM, where you control their IP.

What I can gather is that you would like a separate IP parameter for elements, but it would be kind of chaotic. IP parameter is applied to BM because they are part of the elements, so you are already assigning a priority to each element and its skins. This is why I think is working as it should.

Best regards.

[Barry Kelly]

The new system make for better consistency throughout the model and I think helps to speed up the process.

Rather than creating a concrete wall and assigning the strength, then making a concrete column and assigning the strength then making a concrete slab and assigning the strength we can now just assign the concrete Building Material to the wall, column and slab and know that they will interact with all other elements in a know way.

With the old system you could have 2 concrete walls (slabs beams, etc.) that each have different strength but are modelled with the same material.
Logically this doesn't make a lot of sense and requires the user to keep on top of all the intersections of elements throughout the model.

The new system is much more automatic.
If you need different strength concrete then you simply make 2 Building Materials - just as you would in the real world.


You could take it further and say why have a fill, surface material, pen colours, and all the energy information set in the Building material.
All of this could be done in each individual element but this would be a nightmare.

Barry.

[sinceV6]

Correct.

And... which reminds me... as a UI wish, please add a way to open and edit/create fills and surfaces from the BM dialog. It's a pain to go into the BM editor and then needing to close it (because you need a new fill or need to edit one) go into fills, do the stuff, close it and go back to the BM dialog box. Same for surfaces and composites dialogs. All related parameters should be available in an interconnected way. Please.

(Why here you may ask?, it is BM related )

Best regards.

[Laszlo Nagy]

sinceV6 wrote:
Correct.

And... which reminds me... as a UI wish, please add a way to open and edit/create fills and surfaces from the BM dialog. It's a pain to go into the BM editor and then needing to close it (because you need a new fill or need to edit one) go into fills, do the stuff, close it and go back to the BM dialog box. Same for surfaces and composites dialogs. All related parameters should be available in an interconnected way. Please.

(Why here you may ask?, it is BM related )

Best regards.

You should make this as a wish so we can vote for it.

[Matt Balaam]

strawbale wrote:
Would be interested to hear peoples thoughts specifically on why it is better that IP is currently applied to materials and not construction elements.

From our point of view having the IP set in the BM is far more practical than having it set in the skins of the profiles etc.

We currently have approx. 250 standard wall profiles (swapped in and out of projects, not all in there at once). Say we were already using IP 14 and 15 in our profiles and we needed to insert a new skin between these IPs, the only option was to go through all 250 profiles and change the IPs to make space for the new one. Under the new system, we change the IP in the BM settings in our template and everything works straight away without having to modify a single profile.

Another advantage is not having to remember what IP a skin should be set at. If you make a new profile using the 'IP by skin' methodology you have to know what value to assign to each skin so it works with everything else in your model, something that requires a very good memory or a lot of referencing from other profiles. Using the current system you just select Structural Concrete or Face Brick etc. and the IPs will sort themselves out.

Having worked with both methods I wouldn't even consider going back to element/skin based IPs.

[Anonymous]

Matt wrote:

strawbale wrote:
Would be interested to hear peoples thoughts specifically on why it is better that IP is currently applied to materials and not construction elements.

From our point of view having the IP set in the BM is far more practical than having it set in the skins of the profiles etc.

We currently have approx. 250 standard wall profiles (swapped in and out of projects, not all in there at once). Say we were already using IP 14 and 15 in our profiles and we needed to insert a new skin between these IPs, the only option was to go through all 250 profiles and change the IPs to make space for the new one. Under the new system, we change the IP in the BM settings in our template and everything works straight away without having to modify a single profile.

Another advantage is not having to remember what IP a skin should be set at. If you make a new profile using the 'IP by skin' methodology you have to know what value to assign to each skin so it works with everything else in your model, something that requires a very good memory or a lot of referencing from other profiles. Using the current system you just select Structural Concrete or Face Brick etc. and the IPs will sort themselves out.

Having worked with both methods I wouldn't even consider going back to element/skin based IPs.

Thanks for your response Matt, it helps me understand why people prefer BM to carry the IP parameter.

In response to your point about needing to insert a new skin between IP 14 and 15, would this still be the case if skins and construction elements had a range of 900? It seems that you are comparing the old IP system with a very limited IP range with the new BM system that has a much larger therefore flexible range.

As for your second point, I dont know how everyone else works and maybe Im doing it wrong but I have a BM library that has multiple instances of the exact same BM but duplicated with a different IP strength depending on where in the structure the BM is to be placed. I very often need to create a new "version" of a BM to put it in a different part of the structure and still work correctly for the IP. In which case I need to remember what all the other IP strengths are so as not to mess up IP collisions in the rest of the model. This doesn't seem very logical to me.

So far the responses in this thread have been along the lines of "its much better than how it used to be" but this doesn't mean that the current method the most logical or intuitive implementation this important function of AC.

It could be argued that assigning a simple numerical value to a skin or BM might not even be the best way of handling IP.

I cant help thinking that there must be a way of doing it that takes into account the structural relationships of the building elements and more closely reflects building design workflow.

There is the potential to create a proper method of correctly establishing structural relationships between building elements using a project map in the Navigator menu, something far more sophisticated and intuitive than a simple numerical IP value.

Why could you not have a structural map in the Navigator menu that would include a settings dialogue box similar to the view settings dialogue box in the View map, used to quickly access various building element settings including complex profiles, skins, building materials, connections etc?

[Anonymous]

Rough example