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

Line/Surface Merging Control

Anonymous
Not applicable
This one bothers me for a looong time.
When we have two coplanar adjoining identical surfaces, the line will always become invisible.
As we all know and been discussed in this topic: https://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=45918&hilit=merging+surface&sid=2de7072f31...
Forgive me, but duplicating BM or Surfaces, changing the global behavior by Registry, Applying chamfers on the corner of CP's, Changing Layer Priority or Manual drawing Morph lines, are unacceptable solutions for a very very common situation.
So where I am proposing a checkbox for "Lines on Coplanar Adjoining Identical Surfaces" on all Element Model Settings.
19 REPLIES 19
Gergely Hari
Graphisoft
Graphisoft
I'm sure that any rule-based solution (let it be GO, MVO or BMAT based) will never be a 100% correct - there will always be edge cases which require either element-level intervention, or 2D/3D patching of a few lines.
But I think the BMAT approach is - although a bit more limited than GO - ultimately good for more users; because BMAT settings are core knowledge for almost all AC users, whereas creating GO rules is still the realm of power users mostly. So a solution that solves 80% of cases and accessible for 80% of users, is inherently better than a solution capable of solving 99% of cases, but which can only be operated by less than 50% of users.

If the majority of situations can be solved by "non-merging Building Materials", then I'd go with that - and of course some kind of element / view level override would be necessary to better solve the remaining cases (but only if it is really as trivial to find and use, as drawing the missing lines there...)
Anonymous
Not applicable
Agreed. And the BM approach is more in line with the whole BM principle. The Line/Surface Merging is more a physical characteristic of the material itself.
So, if I understand you correctly, you propose a BM Line/Surface Merging Control and a GO Rule for eventual fine tune, right?
Gergely Hari
Graphisoft
Graphisoft
I'm not sure if the fine-tuning should be GO based though. (don't even know if that part would technically be feasible - GO can only remove-replace attributes, not really capable of drawing lines back if they were not there in the first place...).
I think the fine-tuning should - in the shorter run - be element based (eg. this element always shows all its contours, or never shows them); and in the long run, element &view based (this element's that line is hidden in this view) - but that is purely theoretical, this is far from being feasible at the moment. Element-level control for all lines (like Morph), maybe.
Anonymous
Not applicable
Gergely wrote:
I'm not sure if the fine-tuning should be GO based though. (don't even know if that part would technically be feasible - GO can only remove-replace attributes, not really capable of drawing lines back if they were not there in the first place.
I mean using the GO to change the BM original attribute definition from Visible Lines to Merged Lines.
And assuming that including a Visible/Merged Lines checkbox inside the BM Dialog Box is feasible.
Anonymous
Not applicable
And assuming that including a Visible/Merged Lines checkbox inside the BM Dialog Box is feasible.
Like this:
Marc H
Advisor
Wasn’t the idea was to utilize the same BM for different assemblies (limiting BM redundancy), yet have a visual separation choice? That was the idea behind a suggested WE or project level Separation choice setting based for different classifications (e.g., structural frame) . An additional check box at the element level could be an exception choice for the odd element you want to see merged.

Example: I have a reinforced concrete building. I check a box Project Preferences Separate Coplaner Materials for my structurally classified elements. All columns will have lines between them and any infill concrete walls of the same BM. But then, I have a condition In the design where the SEOR wants a fully integral column set and shear wall. I select the two columns and the wall and check a box marked Merge Element Coplaner Material within the elements Info box.

In the above example, my other non-structural concrete elements using the same BM would still be visually merged. Say, there are some connected half-walls about In various directions of the same concrete spec (to match the structural elements color and texture). You would not see separation because the half walls would not be classed as structural.

Hope this helps.
“The best thing about the future is that it comes one day at a time.” - Abraham Lincoln

AC27 USA on 16” 2019 MBP (2.4GHz i9 8-Core, 32GB DDR4, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M 8G GDDR5, 500GB SSD, T3s, Trackpad use) running Sonoma OS + extended w/ (2) 32" ASUS ProArt PAU32C (4K) Monitors
DGSketcher
Legend
I think Gergely's idea is currently front runner if it could be implemented within a realistic time frame as it makes most sense architecturally e.g. some materials always show their edges whereas others naturally merge. The only problem I see with it is basic render / 3D document type images where you might want to merge the surface as an option for presentation purposes but still need to show the break lines for technical illustration.
Apple iMac Intel i9 / macOS Sonoma / AC27UKI (most recent builds.. if they work)
Anonymous
Not applicable
Marc wrote:
But then, I have a condition In the design where the SEOR wants a fully integral column set and shear wall. I select the two columns and the wall and check a box marked Merge Element Coplaner Material within the elements Info box.
DGsketcher wrote:
The only problem I see with it is basic render / 3D document type images where you might want to merge the surface as an option for presentation purposes but still need to show the break lines for technical illustration.
That's why I suggested the GO for Line/Surface Merging to complement Gergely's solution. You could then create a GO Rule to select only the specific elements and apply them the correct Line/Surface Merging.
As Gergely mentioned, technically, the checkbox inside each elements model options probably wouldn't or hardly be feasible. The inclusion of the control inside the attribute itself would be more straight forward. And the fact the GO only deal with attributes, would allow it to "tweak" the BM options for a particular situation/rule. This would cover the general and specific behavior of the Line/Surface Merging.
Barry Kelly
Moderator
Braza wrote:
That's why I suggested the GO for Line/Surface Merging to complement Gergely's solution. You could then create a GO Rule to select only the specific elements and apply them the correct Line/Surface Merging.

The only problem with GO rules is that they apply to the entire element, so all surfaces on the elements will be set to merge - not just the one surface material.
That might not be a desired outcome.


Barry.
One of the forum moderators.
Versions 6.5 to 27
Dell XPS- i7-6700 @ 3.4Ghz, 16GB ram, GeForce GTX 960 (2GB), Windows 10
Lenovo Thinkpad - i7-1270P 2.20 GHz, 32GB RAM, Nvidia T550, Windows 11
Anonymous
Not applicable
Yes Barry. If the element is made with multiple BM it could get messed.
As DGscketcher said: We may be hitting the developers brick wall. Again.
But I am sure they will come with a clever solution. As usual.