Windows, Walls, and Custom Profiles

[Anonymous]

I've created a custom profile of a 10" Concrete Foundation Wall with a Footing and a ledge to support the brick of the wall above. This wall is to be used for a basement. The problem is that when I place the interior framed walls (composite of 1/2" gypsum and 2x4" framing) around the foundation in the basement the windows and doors will no longer penetrate both the framed and concrete walls. The only solution I can come up with is to add the 2x4" framing and gypsum to the complex profile of the foundation wall thus making a single wall containing all of the elements so that the windows and doors will create openings all the way through. This works as intended for my basement floor plan. However, this creates a problem when creating a foundation plan because the foundation plan then shows the concrete, the framing and the gypsum instead of just the concrete because the materials of the complex profile cannot be broken up into layers.

So, my question then, is what do you generally do when designing a basement with windows through the foundation and interior walls? This can't be an uncommon issue so I'm assuming I've missed some obvious solution. Any suggestions are appreciated. Thank you.

[Da3dalus]

I certainly understand that we overachieve in our drawings, often in a vain (sic) attempt to create something aesthetic. It's in our nature to take pride, especially if you become bored with toilet elevations. However, in the end, I think we all realize that the "beauty" of our drawings is judged by the accuracy, conciseness, simplicity, and correctness to what they represent.

The real-world test of our drawings is not simply the use of the end-user (the laborers), ro the impression of the owners, but the burden of proof as an addendum to the contract between owner and contractor (at least here in the USA). The drawings are the agreed-upon terms, and if there is something misdrawn or not properly represented, the contractor can deny fault when it is built wrong. Of course, this all comes down to money. If it's not clear in the drawings (or specs), then it'll be a change order for more money and time, which many owners simply don't have. If that's the case, it will stay built wrong, or some other element will have to be deleted or cheapened. Either way, the building is scarred, and we have to live with that.

So, BIM in this case is a balance between (A) being able to accurately represent construction and (B) having tools to quickly and easily model that construction. Graphisoft must always be aware of the tradeoffs as they improve their product. Our livelihoods depend on it.

[Anonymous]

Agreed.

It is a fine line between function, form and the art for the art sake of it.

I think MOST architects and designers, esp if we trained on paper or in something like Autocad, are looking for something that can do what we want to have show up in the final result on paper, or even sometimes in 3d. In that way GS fails in the special instances because it begins to become too complicated.

Where the devil comes in is that it is quite rare in my experience for these tiny details to matter. I imagine in some instances the level of detail and finesse really can be crucial (prefabs, large metal work quantities and giant buildings with glass and steel, with special exteriors, etc).

Usually in those instances everyone reverts to AutoCAD for it's ease of perfect line making and editing, something ironically we could still do with AC, if we wanted to just keep it in 2d.

By the way, I noticed tonight we can have things show up in 2d or 3d- either or both or none. Pretty handy, and a creative mind can find solutions for this without SEO's or such...

but nothing in the end quite can keep up with pen and paper or that eraser, eh? So much work for these functions that we can simply draw.

Boggles the mind- and look how far we've come as a profession!

I'm just rambling now.