Stack Levels?

[Anonymous]

I have read, and understand how the stacking within archicad works, but I am running in to problems. Currently I am designing a trellis that is part of a deck. Elements of the trellis are integral to the structure of the deck and much of the trellis occurs on one story. I created the trellis with wall since I am using a stock size wood and it works better than slabs.

So here is my problem, the stacking it totaly arbitrary as if the 3-D elements were 2-D (the smaller elements that are lower in the trellis are view on top etc.) Why do elements not view/stack based on their elevation? When I try to sort things out by either sending to back or bringing to front I run out of stacking levels, and if I edit on of the elements it brings it up in the display order which makes it so I have to go back and redo the whole stack. I have had this problems in many other parts of the model where I am 2-D drafting over 3-d to get more detail.

Any ideas?

[Anonymous]

Why not post a picture of what you are trying to do?

Woody

[Anonymous]

woodster wrote:
Why not post a picture of what you are trying to do?

Woody

Attached you will see a screen capture of the 3-D as well as a photo of how it appears in 2-S.

[Anonymous]

woodster wrote:
Why not post a picture of what you are trying to do?

Woody

Here is the 2-D

[Karl Ottenstein]

Geoff wrote:
Why do elements not view/stack based on their elevation?

AFAIK, Graphisoft is aware of this wish for more sensible stacking order.

Right now, there are a limited number of stacking levels, and elements go to particular levels by default. You have to manually use the bring forward / send backward commands to adjust them to the way you want them.

You end up getting comfortable with the F5, F6 and shift-F5, shift-F6 shortcuts if you do a lot of this stuff...

Karl

[Anonymous]

Karl wrote:

Geoff wrote:
Why do elements not view/stack based on their elevation?

AFAIK, Graphisoft is aware of this wish for more sensible stacking order.

Right now, there are a limited number of stacking levels, and elements go to particular levels by default. You have to manually use the bring forward / send backward commands to adjust them to the way you want them.

You end up getting comfortable with the F5, F6 and shift-F5, shift-F6 shortcuts if you do a lot of this stuff...

Karl

The send forward/send back (which for me is command/shift/] and command shift [ like illustrator and photoshop) but in the case of the trelles there are 20 or so pieces so I run out of stacking slots, not to mention the fact that the stacking level does not remain the same if one of the elements are edited.

[Djordje]

Geoff wrote:

Karl wrote:

Geoff wrote:
Why do elements not view/stack based on their elevation?

AFAIK, Graphisoft is aware of this wish for more sensible stacking order. ///
Karl

The send forward/send back (which for me is command/shift/] and command shift [ like illustrator and photoshop) but in the case of the trelles there are 20 or so pieces so I run out of stacking slots, not to mention the fact that the stacking level does not remain the same if one of the elements are edited.

You might want to try an age old trick:

Select all the elements at the lowest stacking order, and drag in place - isse a drag command, but don't actually move anything, just click on the same plase for the start ad end point. Repeat with upper levels.

The stacking order should be reset previously.

The problem here is that all the elements that you are stacking are of the same type; stacking within types can only be done by send to front/back or manually ...

More luck in 2005! Happy New Year!

HTH,

[Anonymous]

One thing we've done (on occasion) in the past to 'get round' the ANNOYING limitations of AC stacking (as Geoff has discovered) is save a 'plan 3d view' as 2d elements.

This is a messy workaround, but it works.

HTH - Stuart

[Anonymous]

StuartJames wrote:
One thing we've done (on occasion) in the past to 'get round' the ANNOYING limitations of AC stacking (as Geoff has discovered) is save a 'plan 3d view' as 2d elements.

You're right it is annoying but a quick way to do it rather than to save a plan would be to use the patch tool.

Woody

[Anonymous]

Woody;

Using the patch tool to create a (correct) 2d from a complicated 'pile' of 3d elements requires a lot of thought

... Using a 'hidden line 'plan' 3d view' just means less thought - as long as you physically have the correct relation between the objects in 3d they show up correctly 'in plan'.

- Use of this (.2dl) is pretty much the same as the patch tool.

There are many ways to toast a marshmellow

- Stuart