editing story levels

[Anonymous]

Hi folks,
Just wondering how I can change the story level without adjusting the actual heights of whats on that level. So, in section I just want to move the story level line but keep the walls at the height they are at. Is it possible to do this without resetting the heights of all elements of that level?
One other thing. Is it possible to ghost more than one level. I have a building that is cascading down a slope with three levels but would like to show all three levels in the one plan as they are not on top of each other.

Thanks.
Luke

[Aussie John]

Split levels can be handled to a degree with the reference levels (in prefs). Cant remember exactly but you are limited to 2 or 3 reference levels.

[Anonymous]

Djordje wrote:
Always think of a storey as a plan.

What would you show on one plan? All three levels, right? Then, let them all be at the same storey, and move them up and down as needed.

Mostly this is how I think of modeling my multilevel plans. I have started to use the "Show Story Levels in this Section" and setting it to Display & Output. Previously I would use a Library part in the sections that would report the Z value and I would drag them into place. With the new Show Story Levels in this Section, I have found it complex to have to ad a Story for every floor level "step" that I have in a complex residence with many split levels. I have mostly just stuck with a base 1st, 2nd & 3rd Story and shifted the Stepped portions appropriately. Only the base 1st, 2nd & 3rd storys will be shown using the Show Story Levels in this Section so I have to add that "stepped" Story Finish Floor heights using the Library part I mentioned. The reference markers are not the same, and that is a bit bothersome, but this is the way I have decided to go. Other way seems to have to insert many different stories.

Djordje wrote:
ALWAYS have a separate storey for the roof, foundations, site plan.

I agree on the Foundation (& Pony) and Site (mine is called Datum Story), but I have never had a Roof Story. And if using Modules & SEO it is easiest to have the roofs on the upper most wall story. Maybe I can be convinced to change my methods, but I have had no problems not having a separate story for my Roofs. Also some like to have a separate story for each the Floor cavity, which I believe is a mistake as well.

[Anonymous]

Aussie wrote:
Split levels can be handled to a degree with the reference levels (in prefs). Cant remember exactly but you are limited to 2 or 3 reference levels.

I have always wanted to figure out reference level and the uses. Now may be the time.

[Anonymous]

Hi,
really would like to know what is the advantage of having a separate SITE plan story. I use the STS Template (by Eric Bates) and it uses the 1st floor and site are combined in one story, any thoughts?
Thanks,
Joseph

[Link]

Joseph wrote:
Hi,
really would like to know what is the advantage of having a separate SITE plan story. I use the STS Template (by Eric Bates) and it uses the 1st floor and site are combined in one story, any thoughts?
Thanks,
Joseph

The beauty of this is that you can use layers to show your floor plan on the site plan, as they are all contained in one story. This is the method I recommend, along with a separate roof story. Speaking of roofs, I have had clients who want to show their roofs on the site plan, so they keep all their site plan information on their roof story. Strange but it works for them, and doesn't take too long to get used to. For me - about 2.7 seconds. I think many people take stories far too literally.

Until we can print/plot or ghost stories (now called References), placing your site info on your ground floor story is typically the best way to go.

I agree that reference levels could be used as an aid to determining heights and elevations of elements, but it should be made aware that it doesn't place elements on different stories.

Cheers,
Link.

[KeesW]

Should stories show real levels, or relative levels? I have been in the habit of calling my main level 0.00, or 100.000 and having other levels, including site levels relative to this. Then, Graphisoft Australia convinced me to use real levels.

It is much harder!

Numbers are peculiar and of course not rounded, and to 3 decimal places (metric). Extremely hard to remember and relate to. I think that I might go back to my bad, but easier, way.

Maybe I too should consider using AC's relative levels?

[Anonymous]

KeesW wrote:
...Then, Graphisoft Australia convinced me to use real levels.

It is much harder!

Do you mean elevations relative to sea level? I have had one project where this was preferable (too many levels in too many buildings with no "main" level) but it was still a pain. Now with the new (since AC7?) reference levels I just set one of them to sea level and set project zero to the main floor and have it both ways.

[Laura Yanoviak]

Matthew wrote:
Now with the new (since AC7?) reference levels I just set one of them to sea level and set project zero to the main floor and have it both ways.

This is what we do -- works great.