SEO in section/elevation

[Anonymous]

Hello,
I was modeling a 3 story tapered tower using stacked up
full circle walls and then tapering the hole assembly
using a modified copy of the basic shape library part
called "Conoid" as an operator.
Strangely the tapered walls do not show in section/elevation
when viewed as an elevation. The walls are visible if I cut a section
through the tower. The tower appears correctly in the 3D window.
I have not run into this before when using SEO.
Has anyone experienced this? Is there a fix?
Thank you,
Peter Devlin

[Anonymous]

This is a new one to me, but I would guess that for some reason AC is failing to find the outside contours of the walls. Try applying a material with a fill pattern and see if you get the walls to show in elevation. Perhaps a different approach to the SEO would get it to work. You don't say how you are executing the operation.

[Anonymous]

Matthew,
Thanks for the reply.
I just tested this again with a simpler tower.
Two full circle walls, the first one on story 1, second one stacked on
the first on story 2, their thickness is 2'-0".
The conoid (truncated cone shell) is vertical
with it's narrower end at the top and a shell thickness of 3'-0".
It's lower internal diameter is equal to the outside diameter of
the circular walls , it's upper internal diameter is 1'-0" less
than the the outside diameter of the walls.
I am using this as an SEO operator like a pencil sharpener
to subtract that portion of the walls that interpenetrates the conoid.
I set the surface of the targets to keep their own attributes.
I set the material, as you suggested, to a regular fill pattern.
Not only do the wall edges not show but also the walls do not clean-up
as they did before the SEO.
In 3D the edges are visible, even in hidden line mode, but the joint
between lower and upper wall does not clean-up.
If I set the surfaces to inherit the operators attributes not only
are the edges still not visible but the joint now is delineated with a
rust colored line that I can't find in any of the settings for the object.
What other SEO would you suggest to get this pencil sharpener effect?
Thank you,
Peter Devlin

[Anonymous]

It seems you've done everything you can. I suggest you forward the file to GS as a bug report. You seem to have pushed the SEO further than it is able to go.

Your only immediate solution may be to modify the conoid object to BE the walls. This will require using SEOs for the doors and windows and some display order tweaking (and maybe some fills) to get the plan to look right.

[Anonymous]

Matthew,
I will send the file to GS.
In the meantime I think I'll try saving the SEO walls as a library part
just out of curiosity to see if it looks the same and to see how
AC codes the object. I'm curious to see if AC uses cutform
for the subtraction or subgroup.
I did an experiment with an object
where I used a closed spline in a kidney bean shape magic wanded
into a marque to trim off the outside edges off an object.
I saved the 3D view as an object and AC used cutform to subtract
the area outside the marque.
You probably knew but I didn't that cutform
can remove everything outside of the cutting shape.

Anyway Thanks,
Peter Devlin

[Anonymous]

Matthew,
Just a note, I thought you would be interested.
I made a library part out of the SEO walls and placed an instance
of it in the plan. The joint had cleaned up but the sides still
don't show in section/elevation.
The 3D script is a mess.
Sixteen calls for the conoid object, but (correctly) four XWALLs.
AC used solid geometry commands exclusively.
Thanks,
Peter Devlin

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the updates.

I am not surprised that the script was a mess, SEOs being so new and all. It is clear that we still have to tread cautiously with them and not assume that they will work properly in all the myriad possible ways they might be used.

[Anonymous]

the battered wall accessory will work fine for this

the 'parent' wall can be zero thickness if you want the wall to be a single material in section

bill

[Anonymous]

Bill,
Thank you for the reply.
I find battered wall unsatisfactory for several reasons.
One, There is no way to assign a different contour pen for
the edges in 3D vs 2D.
Two, you can make the object 3 stories high but it can't sense openings in
walls other than the ones in the wall it is linked to.
Three, you can make 3 separate battered walls one on each story
but these objects can't clean up with each other.
Four, when battered wall is used on a complete circle wall it shows
two vertical joints unlike the parent walls that do clean up
the vertical joints.
If you have a way of overcoming these deficiencies in battered wall
please let me know.
Thank you,
Peter Devlin

[Anonymous]

ok, not perfect, but:

one

yes you can. in floor plan settings set to use symbol colours and linetypes (and set these in parameters for floor plan representation). now set the floor plan pen and that will be used for 3D contours. totally illogical

two

true. windows have to be inserted into the parent wall and the battered wall accessory doesn't seem to be dynamically linked so you'll need to delete and re-accessorise if you edit any windows. windows can be offset out of their parent wall to be in the battered wall (although they sometimes want to jump back if you open their settings dialogue)

three

in rendering or 3D window? either way, it works fine for me (lines will appear in 3D window if you have contours switched on, but that's normal behaviour)

S/E views don't seem to clean up properly but a white line overlay will easily kill any seams

four

i think you're right there. for some reason AC won't allow a 360 degree curved wall as a single element. splits it into two semicircles, but you know that

finally, materials (vectorial hatching / texture) don't map well. i would guess that this is simply the way AC works and is probably insurmountable

hope that's of some help

bill