cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Modeling
About Archicad's design tools, element connections, modeling concepts, etc.

ac10 walls

Anonymous
Not applicable
walls in ac10:
home storey of wall starts at level 0.00 and ends at +2.50
wall base is at -0.05 and wall top is at +5.00.
when I select "show on / link to storey" - "own storey only" instead of the default "automatic" value the wall dissapears from the plan view. 3D is ok.

what should I do? I think I tried all the combinations with "floor plan display" and "projection" but the result is the same.



__________
ac10 int | win xp sp2
44 REPLIES 44
Laura Yanoviak
Advisor
Like I said, it's nice in theory. We would have walls disappear from plan view (all plan views), and we could only find them/select them by viewing in the 3D window. We have 3 stories "below" our first level (-1. Foundation, -2. Working Story, and -3. XREF) all at the same elevation, and the foundation walls kept placing themselves on the XREF story. Now, we approached this with every wall having the "Automatic" setting. The disappearing walls were maddening, and we certainly weren't getting the output we wanted. So finally we resorted back to "Own Story" and made "Automatic" the exception.
MacBook Pro Apple M2 Max, 96 GB of RAM
AC27 US (5003) on Mac OS Ventura 13.6.2
Started on AC4.0 in 91/92/93; full-time user since AC8.1 in 2004
PatriciaLe_o
Participant
Archi wrote:
But it makes trouble for the calculation, if the wall is positioned in minus Level from the own strorey.


I just noticed it now!!! I was having this calculation problem and I thought it was because the zones were calculated between stories and not sensitive to what delimitated them. Indeed they're not vertically sensitive. But it's not calculated just between stories also....
I did this model using automatic walls, and when I found (wrongly) out this calculation between stories, my workaround was to create another story... I knew somehow it was an "ugly" workaround that could give me troubles ahead, but I did it anyway because of the calculations... Now I'm wondering... maybe I shall rebuild it using 'current story' on my walls. I think it has to do with another major 'problem' to me: where my level 0 should be!? What I decided was to keep level 0 on the finished floor level, wich in my case, means that I'll have a structural slab under level 0, and the walls start from there...
Patricia Leão

AC21 INT Full
MacOSHighSierra
Anonymous
Not applicable
Laura wrote:
We have 3 stories "below" our first level (-1. Foundation, -2. Working Story, and -3. XREF) all at the same elevation, ...
Of course this is your problem. I know that many users like to have "fake Stories for different things, and I see the need. I even have a fourth story for general notes. But even this story has a raised elevation from the story below.

Is there a reason that your "fake" stories have to be at the same level as the Foundation story?

FWIW - I plan to go ahead with the automatic walls, except for my favorites that I use for the Pony build-up stud walls (Story -1 for me) & the Foundation stem walls (Story -2 for me). Story -3 is our Datum layer that contains the hotlinked Archterra Site plan.

I am thinking of attempting to do the site plan within the same PLN file but the rotation of the site and the appropriate annotation in the layout often proves to messy, but this is another topic.....
Laura Yanoviak
Advisor
Jay wrote:
Is there a reason that your "fake" stories have to be at the same level as the Foundation story?
No -- this is just the way it has been set up (keeping it simple) -- also the creation of objects on the "Working Story" at Project Zero.

Good luck with your decision -- let us know if it works for you...
MacBook Pro Apple M2 Max, 96 GB of RAM
AC27 US (5003) on Mac OS Ventura 13.6.2
Started on AC4.0 in 91/92/93; full-time user since AC8.1 in 2004
Anonymous
Not applicable
PatriciaLeão wrote:
... Now I'm wondering... maybe I shall rebuild it using 'current story' on my walls...
This is what I would do, but only for the walls that are below 0. For our office this would be only the Garage walls that are on the perimeter of the Slab on timber floor.

Your model may be different, and you may have many walls that are "below" current story. Also I am reporting any calculating with my Zones within the stamp. And my zones at this time are not room by room, but split between conditioned, non-conditioned, Storage & Decks. I am using a Interactive Schedule to report and sum the zone footages. I will keep my eyes open for any "errors" in the calculations.

If this is a bug with the zone calculation, is it reported?
Link
Graphisoft Partner
Graphisoft Partner
Laura wrote:
Like I said, it's nice in theory. We would have walls disappear from plan view (all plan views), and we could only find them/select them by viewing in the 3D window. We have 3 stories "below" our first level (-1. Foundation, -2. Working Story, and -3. XREF) all at the same elevation, and the foundation walls kept placing themselves on the XREF story. Now, we approached this with every wall having the "Automatic" setting. The disappearing walls were maddening, and we certainly weren't getting the output we wanted. So finally we resorted back to "Own Story" and made "Automatic" the exception.
You're essentially making AC10 to behave like AC9 because your lowest three stories are all at the same elevation. If you were to give each of those stories some height so that the FPCP wasn't forced onto those walls, you wouldn't have this issue. I'm relieved to see it's story management that's the problem here, not the FPCP.

In any case, there are times when one method is better than the other, but as long as you find something that works reliably for your type of work, that's the most important thing.
PatriciaLeão wrote:
I just noticed it now!!! I was having this calculation problem and I thought it was because the zones were calculated between stories and not sensitive to what delimitated them. Indeed they're not vertically sensitive. But it's not calculated just between stories also....
This is more of a concern. What is the height of your zone and how idoes the wall disurbe the calculation exactly?

Cheers,
Link.
Laura Yanoviak
Advisor
Link wrote:
You're essentially making AC10 to behave like AC9 because your lowest three stories are all at the same elevation. If you were to give each of those stories some height so that the FPCP wasn't forced onto those walls, you wouldn't have this issue. I'm relieved to see it's story management that's the problem here, not the FPCP.
No -- this was only one example, and perhaps a bad example at that. We would have walls disappear from plan view (all plan views, not just those at Project Zero). To select/edit them, we would have to find them in the 3D window, temporarily switch them to "Own Story" so they could be edited in the plan window, and then switched back to "Automatic". We found that there were actually more work-arounds required for the "Automatic" setting, and it was just simpler to keep them "Own Story" except for special conditions.
MacBook Pro Apple M2 Max, 96 GB of RAM
AC27 US (5003) on Mac OS Ventura 13.6.2
Started on AC4.0 in 91/92/93; full-time user since AC8.1 in 2004
PatriciaLe_o
Participant
Jay wrote:
Your model may be different, and you may have many walls that are "below" current story.


Actually all my walls are below story levels. I don't know if you can see on the image I posted before, but I have like two slabs (one that's a structural slab and is really a slab starting below level 0 and the other for the flooring, wich is a slab accessory object). And as I said I think the best way to work is having the project level 0 on the finished flooring level. If I had only one slab starting on level 0 and the walls started on that level, I wouldn't have this problem.
Jay wrote:
If this is a bug with the zone calculation, is it reported?


I don't know if it's a bug... but it looks really weird to me...

Link wrote:
What is the height of your zone and how idoes the wall disurbe the calculation exactly?


The zone height is 2,57m wich is the distance between the bathroom finished floor level and the bottom of the structural slab. But I tried different zone heights ans the problem is still the same. IMHO, I think that zones should "feel" the vertical limits, the same way they do with the horizontal ones. So imagine if you have a room with different ceiling levels, it'd calculate the real volume automatically.
The image below shows how the bathroom area is affected by a superior wall.
Patricia Leão

AC21 INT Full
MacOSHighSierra
Jay wrote:
So James, are you still "own story" vs. automatic for most walls?
Sorry for the delay. Briefly, yes, Automatic is off. Some disorganized comments:

It's good that AC can figure out how to display complex, especially sloping, elements by itself. This is a huge feature for roofs, assuming your roofs slope. Note you don't need 'Automatic' to have roofs display this way, just some variant of 'Projected'.

For vertical walls, Automatic doesn't give any advantage at all at the 1-3 story scale of my residential work. In Automatic multi-story walls, it's very easy for openings to act so clever they act stupid, showing on the wrong story etc., in my limited research.

If you use Automatic at all, you must confront the horror of the lower fields of the FPCP dialog. Factor this in and it's not automatic at all, it's just another thing to experiment with.

My attempt at an exhaustive (but roofs-only) analysis of the FPCP and its dialog is here. Just ridiculously user-hostile IMO. And no, it's not just the interface, it's the underlying design.

Anything 'Automatic' requires trust on the part of the user, and I don't trust the current implementation. 'Automatic' can sometimes be just a nice word for 'loss of user control'. Depends what you like.

In conclusion, I use AC fine without it.
James Murray

Archicad 27 • Rill Architects • macOS • OnLand.info
Laura Yanoviak
Advisor
James wrote:
Anything 'Automatic' requires trust on the part of the user, and I don't trust the current implementation. 'Automatic' can sometimes be just a nice word for 'loss of user control'. Depends what you like.
Yes -- this has been our experience -- LJY.
MacBook Pro Apple M2 Max, 96 GB of RAM
AC27 US (5003) on Mac OS Ventura 13.6.2
Started on AC4.0 in 91/92/93; full-time user since AC8.1 in 2004