Wishes
Post your wishes about Graphisoft products: Archicad, BIMx, BIMcloud, and DDScad.
SOLVED!

Composite adjustable thickness

Vasileios S_
Advocate

Hello everybody,

 

Can we have adjustable thickness to a composite?

 

For example, I want to have a composite of "concrete-insulation-stone", instead of:

150concrete-100insulation-50stone

150concrete-50insulation-50stone

150concrete-100insulation-100stone

150concrete-50insulation-100stone etc...

 

I believe this is crucial.

 

Vassilis

 

You cannot build a line.
43 REPLIES 43

I attach an image (photoshopped) of how I would like to see it. Look at the red circle. It would be the same as the modifiers in custom profiles.

adjustable-composite-thicknesses-example.jpg

You cannot build a line.

Yes, but how do you propose to have offset options in such a shape, is my question.

Erwin Edel, Project Lead, Leloup Architecten
www.leloup.nl

ArchiCAD 9-26NED FULL
Windows 10 Pro
Adobe Design Premium CS5

@Erwin Edel I think "offset" is probably a misinterpreted terminology. What I believe @Vasileios S_ is looking for is the application of "Offset modifiers", like we have in Complex profiles, to allow you to adjust a skin thickness in a placed element which is using Composite profiles. 

Apple iMac Intel i9 / macOS Sonoma / AC27UKI (most recent builds.. if they work)

So you would still have seperate slabs, but with a complex profile instead of a composite.

 

I see. You would be limited to only 'box' shapes in the profile, I guess, since it can only extrude up and down.

Erwin Edel, Project Lead, Leloup Architecten
www.leloup.nl

ArchiCAD 9-26NED FULL
Windows 10 Pro
Adobe Design Premium CS5

This is how.

adjustable-composite-thicknesses-2.jpg

You cannot build a line.

 

I would suggest updating the OP with this image and perhaps a better description of the wanted functionality. As it stands now it's hard to understand the wish which makes it less likely to be acknowledged by GS.

 

Some thoughts:

 

So the wish is not to make any fundamental changes to how composites work but enhance how composites are managed and defined.

 

What happens when you change the thickness of a composites skin in model space?

Should it add the new configuration as a new composite?

Should it create subtypes of the composite with different thicknesses?

Should it become undefined in terms of composites?

 

I think the subtype approach has some appeal especially as it gives a better organisation of composites. Perhaps with the functionality to define different thicknesses in the Composite Structures Dialog Box that then works as snap points in model space.

 

The question is then what happens with composites with the same skin configuration in terms of thicknesses but differing in skin type and graphics?

It is easy my friend. It will work the same way as the profiles. I'll answer each one of your questions:

 

What happens when you change the thickness of a composites skin in model space? - The same as profile modifiers (i.e. columns in model space). It would update all relevant drawings. You should be able to change the thickness of a composite when it is cut (i.e. walls in plans and sections, slab only in section etc.)

Should it add the new configuration as a new composite? - No. Just like profiles. When you add a column and change its modifiers, AC does not create a new profile.

Should it create subtypes of the composite with different thicknesses? - No. No subtypes. Just the composite itself.

Should it become undefined in terms of composites? - No. It will use the same name.

 

I attach a picture of some columns that use the same profile. Everything stays under the main profile.

adjustable-composite-thicknesses-column-example.jpg

 

You cannot build a line.

The problem with the profile modifier approach is indexing of elements. Today element listing parameters regarding structure are limited to name of material, composite, and profile. So if you make a list for the two elements in you example there's no way to tell if they have the same cross-section or not.

 

We can't have that for composites so modifying the skin of a composite would either have to make it undefined in terms of structure or it would have to create a new (sub-type) composite. Thinking of it - complex profiles should be amended with regards to this.

There are two sides to this, Art & Science if you will. Stretchy skins for modelling would be great. Tracking & documenting those stretches could be problematic. I don't think that is a reason not to have it, the responsibility just needs to fall firmly on the shoulders of the end user and the stretching needs to be a conscious effort that can't accidentally happen. This isn't really any different to introducing morphs into the model, they are equally difficult to quantify, but it is possible for the end user to document them and nobody is saying we shouldn't have morphs are they?

Apple iMac Intel i9 / macOS Sonoma / AC27UKI (most recent builds.. if they work)

I'm not opposed to the wish (as i understand it). I agree that things can be done about how composites are defined and I do se some value in being able to define it graphically.

 

And my questions about how it should be implemented was not posed as obstacles to the wish but to clarify it with the goal to increase the likelihood of it being acknowledged by GS.

  

I don't really see any problem reconciling the two sides you mention. For example, when stretching the user can be prompted to choose to define a new sub-composite or to change the elements structure to "free-stretch composite".

 

But I can't really see how it could be implemented as described (like profile modifiers). I would even say that it would compromise the functionality of composites due to the indexing issue.