Line/Surface Merging Control

[Anonymous]

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.

[Marc H]

Essential! Thank you, Braza, for proposing it.

This would be a very efficient solution one can choose by element. My work around, as others have also stated, is to create a discreetly different building material with a slightly different priority. This works well in many places, but in some cases it just propagates more materials than would really be needed and therefore, more things to manage with no value added.

[Laszlo Nagy]

Good wish and a good solution so the behavior can be controlled on an element level.
I voted Essential.

[Marc H]

I just had another thought: this condition often presents itself when we have adjoining structural elements, whereas not so much for finishes where we typically hide adjoining material 'seams'. This is noted in Jared Banks entry within the referred topic. He speaks of framing and my experience is typically around adjoining concrete walls and columns, or primary and secondary steel, etc.

Perhaps you could have a Work Environment (or project template level) panel where you review the coplanar separation value defaults by classification (e.g., 'structural') or perhaps MVO, so as to set most of your element groups from the start. Then, you customize at the element level check box as an override to those more global values.

[Anonymous]

Marc wrote:
Then, you customize at the element level check box as an override to those more global values.

You mean adding this option to a GO Rule?
Like this:

[DGSketcher]

I have voted essential as this is currently something I have have to manage by duplication of materials resulting in typically four copies of each framing element to prevent merging and make it clear where beams & columns start & stop.

Just throwing it out there, but to do my framing correctly the layers need an intersection value of zero, for me the simple solution would be to simply extend the LIP to not merge materials, or perhaps add the use of -1 to add the option. This provides easy global control by layer and can be quickly set through layer combos according to display requirements.

The prospect of managing this by element could be frustrating under some situations e.g. tracking down the right element(s) to set the tick box and needing to display both conditions to limit unwanted lines. Bear in mind how long it has taken to get the equivalent MVO option for slabs. I don't see GS providing an MVO for each element type as it doesn't solve different elements meeting and on an individual basis it just adds to the tool complexity when we need simplicity. I do think an GO option would be the next best option e.g. Show element contour.

[Anonymous]

@DGSketcher

Yes. Granular/Element control is always a nice thing. But in this particular case, it could create some inconsistency. Plus the fact that the automatic invisibility of these lines probably have been created by GS for the performance sake. The Graphic Override solution seems more versatile, as it can change it at both levels with a search criteria. Not to mention that it would be much more easy to implement, as you wouldn't need to put the checkbox on every Element Model Option Dropdown. Personally, I would like both options (Element and GO), but I would also be happy for the GO.

[Gergely Hari]

I have a feeling this control rather belongs to the Building Material level. Eg. Metals, Wood, Plastics, Precast concrete you would want to keep the lines when joined, while in-situ materials like brickwork, concrete, plaster, soil, gravel, sand, air, water are something tonalways be merged and the lines eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Hi Gergely,
Thanks for the feedback.
I think the thing is not that linear... For example: There are situations that involve brick/Tilework and phases, where the line between the two phased walls need to be visible.

[Anonymous]

But in the other hand, the phasing separation line could be better handled by Layer Intersection Priority.
Yes... I think you are probably correct.