Method Query: Multi-Story Walls or Complex Profiles?

[Anonymous]

I'm pushing as far as I can with this program. The office I'm working in isn't totally up on the 3-D capabilities and is still using this as uber-glorified drafting. So, I've really got to be efficient about my modeling.

I've been using Multi-Story walls (exterior walls and some interior), as sometimes my story heights change and getting all the bits back together has been difficult. I've had to mask lines that occur when walls aren't perfectly synced, and I feel like I'm limiting this problem with the multi-story exterior walls.

However.

Drawing molding in interior elevations makes me crazy. I'm totally in love with the Complex Profiler. Being able to set a chair rail and a base and a crown, and change everything at once if the molding changes... sweeeeet. I really like that the section of a well-built complex profile can get even closer to the actual detail.

But...

I worry that

A) I'll lose track of my complex profile library, as I'll have interior partitions of conditions A, B, exterior walls conditions A, B, C, etc etc etc.

B) the single-story walls won't line up as well.


Which way is best to model stuff that will eventually get into fairly fine details?

Oh, and... where's the best place to put the floor slab? At the top of the story below, or the bottom of its own story?

Thanks y'all.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Bier wrote:
Client likes the base trim I'm showing, (so far so good), but she's not sure on style of chair rail, (wants to at least another option). But for crown molding husband just can't seem to make up his mind, so he want's to see three more styles and at least two more sizes for the two different rooms he's considering it for.
Now I don't want to make up all these combination locked into one C.P....

Glad you know about the "With Finishes" option, etc. 😉 Still very new to a lot of readers.

What you're describing, though, Bier is 'design options' - something talked about a length over the years here...with frustration. GS introduced a product called Change Manager a few years ago, or something like that, to support what you're talking about ... but without needing to introduce more layers. But, apparently it had issues with hotlinked modules and more and was dropped before I even had a chance to evaluate it.

The problem with managing change options with layers is that with your example above, you've already got 9 more layers...and as you know, they would have to be incorporated somehow into a bunch of combos - or else you'd manually update views in person with them. And, once they've decided, you've got to move the accepted stuff into the layers used in your placed drawings, etc...

Another possible way of dealing with the scenario you give is to use Attribute Manager. I know you said that you didn't want to redraw the complex profiles - but you would have to create the new trim profiles anyway. So, instead, just duplicate the base profile and copy/paste the trim profiles to create the various possibilities for the wall. Save each profile into a separate AAT file with the same index number as the profile assigned to the wall. Now, just over-writing the current profile with one of the other ones lets you show the different options...without having to change anything about layers, combos, placed drawings, etc. Still painful though, I agree.

Of course, if we had something more attuned to managing options, this would be much easier. Suppose instead of just tags like "finish" and "core", we had user-defined tags? Without going into a tag-only world, imagine that every element has a layer and a tag - layers doing what they do now, and tags adding an additional way to control visibility via a Model View Option - a direct extension of core/finish and PSD. So, a single profile could have elements tagged 'crown ver 1', 'crown ver 2', 'chair rail ver 1', etc. and a bunch of checkboxes in a MVO would determine which were visible. Demolition plans might be similar - we'd just have a WALL EXT layer - with wall elements tagged as 'demo', keep', 'new', etc.

Anyway ... for the original comment about separating mouldings into different walls, I still think that using the Finish attribute for those parts of profiles is the easiest way to make it happen in 12 and above. But, I really don't have an efficient workflow for managing multiple options as in your example.

Cheers,
Karl

[Djordje]

Karl wrote:
What you're describing, though, Bier is 'design options' - something talked about a length over the years here...with frustration. GS introduced a product called Change Manager a few years ago, or something like that, to support what you're talking about ... but without needing to introduce more layers. But, apparently it had issues with hotlinked modules and more and was dropped before I even had a chance to evaluate it.

Actually, it was Options manager, and only in the US.

Change Manager is the software now produced and marketed by Vico, originally by Graphisoft, for the comparison of DWGs and PDFs - great for anyone who gets gazillions of revisions often, like I do for example. Think Trace with sliders, only freestanding and on steroids - integrated into the Project management workflow.

Back to the topic, yes, the 'design options' are very much needed - and maybe a good argument for persuading the powers that be to at least think about it is mentioning that you-know-who (the R word) has it.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Djordje wrote:
Actually, it was Options manager, and only in the US.

Thanks for the correction. 😉

Karl

[Anonymous]

Thanks for all the great insider info; karl and Djordje.
I will be looking at all of that as soon as I can.
What a wealth of info this forum is.
Without it, I may have given up on AC., it's just amazingly and frustratingly complicated, to enter as I did at this sophisticated level of AC, especially for single users without lots of funds for lots of high end training. As I like to say, I'm not a rich man.
The written manual should be AT-LEAST twice it's size/quality.
Anyway, after three partial years of AC, I think I'll make it, someday.
But as back up, and back to Djordje's statement, as conformation, I am getting some basic training on Revit as long term assurance against all the proverbial eggs in one idiom basket concept.
(My next lesson is how Revit deals without layers).
One more time; the killer for me is the stair tools ineptitude, especially at winders, bla, bla, bla,,,,,,
Bier
ps
But thanks for all you do do GS. But don't stop trying to impress us common folks.

[Anonymous]

Karl wrote:
Well, not layers, and not separate walls as suggested by Peter... Assign your trim pieces as 'finish' and then use the Partial Structure Display option "without finishes" for your floor plan. Show everything including finishes in your wall sections.

AHA! I kinda thought this might be possible, as it seemed to be with the walls even in v11 (finishes/components visibility at different scales). Guess I didn't look close enough in the Profiler options.

Next time around, this is the method I'm runnin' with.

I'm also getting more comfortable with Layer Combinations, and Peter's suggestion has merit as well.

Thanks guys...

[Djordje]

Bier wrote:
But as back up, and back to Djordje's statement, as conformation, I am getting some basic training on Revit as long term assurance against all the proverbial eggs in one idiom basket concept.
(My next lesson is how Revit deals without layers).

Hm ... no time for more training on the tool that you have, while starting on another? 😉 There is no long term assurance - you should build up your business, and the tools are something that makes your life and work easier, not the reason that you do the job.

BTW, Revit does not have layers.

Bier wrote:
One more time; the killer for me is the stair tools ineptitude, especially at winders, bla, bla, bla,,,,,,

Another 15 years and it should be OK 😉

[Anonymous]

Thanks for you comments Djordje
For me:
As momma said....
Almost always, or always, having a plan "B" is a good thing.
Kinda like when you walk into a large building, know your alternative
egress, the one that not everyone is rushing to.
Thanks, but I knew Revit does not use layers, but will be looking a ways of doing "views" without them, (properties I believe).
You know, just for fun.
Kinda like being ambidextrous.
Could come in handy someday:-)
Bier