Nested Complex Profiles and Composites

[Anonymous]

I wish I have, within Complex Profile and Composite Editor, the option to created nested CP's and Composites based in already created ones.
With this, the number of these attributes within the Office Template would be reduced considerably.

For example:
- An interior simple 15 cm thick brick core wall has the option of interior and exterior finishes.
- An exterior double 35 cm thick brick core wall also has interior and exterior finishes.
By now, we have to create one CP or Composite for each possible solution within the office template.
With Nested CP's and Composites, we could create a new Nested CP/Composite named Exterior_Wall_01 and add already created core CP/Composite + Another already created finish CP/Composite for interior + Another already created finish CP/Composite for exterior.
And the same to a Nested CP/Composite Interior_Wall_01.
If you need to change just the finishes, you just edit the Nested CP/Composite.
It would also allow i.e.: for easy use/change/maintain commercial steel/aluminum profiles on multiple parts of the structure/doors/windows.
What do you think?

[DGSketcher]

I thought we were trying to simplify the workflow.

[Anonymous]

Ok. Perhaps the example I gave doesn't quite describe the potential of the this functionality.

Put it simple: Its like CP's/Composites "modules".
With Nested CP's/Composites, we could add, rotate, copy, mirror, multiply already existent CP's/Composites in new ones. This could be particularly useful in managing slight variations of very Complex Cp's/Composites, where we could break down complexity, reuse and adapt it on more complex ones. And if we need to edit something, we just edit the module and all the other instances would be automatically updated.

Anyone?... Anyone?...

[Jp1138]

This could be very useful, but the implementation should be thinked carefully: do you use in in composites, where instead of a building material you can choose another composite / complex profile, for example? Complex profiles within complex profiles can be a bit tricky, maybe there should be another way to assemble the parts?

Somehow this should be introduced into existing workflows to not overcomplicate things even more.

[Anonymous]

Jp1138 wrote:
do you use in in composites, where instead of a building material you can choose another composite / complex profile, for example? Complex profiles within complex profiles can be a bit tricky, maybe there should be another way to assemble the parts?

No. Nested CP's are available only to CP's and Nested Composites only for Composites. No mixing here.

I also thought of instead of Nested CP/Composites, there could be a break down in an element base (Inside element settings). So you could define a CP/Composite for Core, Interior Finish and Exterior Finish. But I think this would limit its potential. Tough it would considerably reduce the number of CP/Composites, as you only create separate parts that are "assembled" within the element (Wall, Slab, Beam or Column).

I think the CP/Composite "Inception" would be better.

[Jp1138]

Well then, I think you propose basically that composites can be treated as materials, and as so be used in other composites.

On the other hand, complex profiles may be assembled inside other profiles, as references inside references, using a CAD simile.

This last one may makes more sense to me, because after thinking it over the composites/materials duality may be to confusing and maybe not offer so many advantages over just normal materials. "Container" complex profiles can be very useful though.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Composites may be a little tricky, as they are not set graphically. The implementation would require a "Mirror" Checkbox, to for example apply the same Nested Finish Composites on the Exterior/Top or Interior/Bottom of the Wall/Slab.

On the other hand, Nested Complex Profiles seem more straight forward, as we can move and mirror them graphically.

This capability, along with a much needed multiple dedicated attribute files that could be linked to the project library, would pave the road for Specific Manufacturers Attribute files. These files could contain, among other things, commercial profiles (i.e.: Kingspan Sandwich Panels, Door/Window pvc/aluminum profiles). Then we could load only the attribute files that contain specified materials/products, and apply them to the project where needed.

Does this makes sense?

[Jp1138]

I think it does make sense, yes. Hope it makes sense for GS too

[Minh Nguyen]

Hi All,

Thank you very much for creating this poll, and for those of you who voted to express their opinion.

I am happy to say we took notice of this wish and I have added it into our WishList database (please refer to it as Wish #12794). In my opinion, this can be a very useful feature, but it would be tricky to implement to avoid over-complicated the software, as others have mentioned.

Thank you all once more, and I wish you a great day!

Best regards,
Minh

[Anonymous]

Thanks Minh! Much appreciated

And while you are here... I'd like to draw your attention to these two CP related wishes:

Complex Profile With LOD
Complex Profile With Full Individual Surface Origin

Thanks for your attention,

[Tim Ball]

One of the main reasons why this is so important is because of data structure.

A complex profile is like drawing a construction system
But the materials that make up that system all need to have their own data

At the moment we can add data to a wall drawn as a complex profile, but we can't access the materials that make up that wall

The modelling aspect works well, but the data aspect is inadequate

[DGSketcher]

@Tim: I'm not so sure I am on board with the "nested" aspect which has been suggested elsewhere, I see that would bring modelling benefits, but I think it would also bring a whole host of attribute management problems and unseen drawing errors.

If you are referring to the simple ability to label the sub-elements of CPs then 100% this is essential. We can do this with curtain walls, so it isn't a radical change for GS and it would really help with section annotation.

I would like to explain my thinking on the nested component aspect. It is very easy to get suckered in to the automation aspect of CAD, unfortunately whilst it may speed the design process, it also has the ability to magnify the errors unless the user is meticulous in checking and data management. The simple tweak of a component because it doesn't quite fit the model could lead to the delivery of a significant number of components to site that cannot be used because a designer hadn't realised where a component was nested in the rest of the model.

[Anonymous]

Hi Trevor,
When I made this whish, I was thinking on a very common situation (among some others) that occurs in my workflow: Sometimes I need to create variations of a Complex Profile that share a standard UPN steel profile. The UPN profile has Offset Modifiers which can not be copied to other CP's. So if I could just "Insert" an already existent CP it would considerably speed up the process of creating and managing all CP's sharing a common CP. Another good use of the Nested Complex Profiles, would be in the creation of specific commercial CP's directly from a Dedicated Shared Resource File, that could be used in endless situations along the Project.

[DGSketcher]

Hi Paulo, I am doing a lot of framing work just now using timber I beams, the more I work on them the more I see how easy it is to place a parametric CP, but I also see how quickly things can unravel when the CP default offsets aren't updated because the edit was done quickly in a 2D view, the revision is then published to a module file which is then scattered as Hotlinks throughout the model. Unless the CP error is glaringly obvious it would be very easy to have the contractor fabricating using the wrong CP section. This is a simple example of an un-nested component. If for instance that mis-sized component was nested within another CP and wasn't immediately visible the error may never be detected until too late. Okay maybe I am being overly cautious but be assured when it does go wrong GS won't be footing the bill for poor data management.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your thoughts. I understand your concerns and I find them very valid.
This is a very tricky ground. It must be taken very carefully to avoid more losses than gains.

DGSketcher wrote:
but be assured when it does go wrong GS won't be footing the bill for poor data management.

That is for sure!

[bouhmidage]

Your wish is quite interesting !
i was thinking why not merging the Composite and complex profiles together, in my template, i create a 35 cm exterior wall with composite, when that wall crosses a bathroom, i need to split it, convert the bathromm segment to a complex profile to divide it horizontally : 240 ch height : tiles , the rest : finish.
my proposal is :
an interface whic creates skins like composites :
- each skin can receive thickness, building material, renovation satate, modifiers like complex profile, covering fills origin,
- show and hide option, moldings in an interior wall can be shown or hidden.
- finish skins can receive objects , this could be helpfull for cladding work, we create the cladding module, save it as finish wall / roof object , and then it repetes along the wall
- possibility to unmerge two adjascent identical building materials

[DGSketcher]

bouhmidage wrote:
i was thinking why not merging the Composite and complex profiles together...

I like that idea from a consolidation perspective. A lazy fix might just be to make the wall skins in a Composite parametric. I wouldn't mind that, as I still haven't fully grasped the CP stretch set up, but I also think of CPs as more component orientated e.g. beam / column type elements. Overall though I would back their consolidation if the modifiers were better explained or easier to use.

[Anonymous]

DGSketcher wrote:

bouhmidage wrote:
Sun Aug 23, 2020 9:24 am
i was thinking why not merging the Composite and complex profiles together...

I like that idea from a consolidation perspective.

+1
Yes. Merging the two would be nice. I think composites are a bit of outdated. There is nothing you can do with composites that you can't with Complex Profiles. Perhaps GS is keeping it for the performance sake. If not, I can't see any reason for maintaining it.

[Anonymous]

Thinking better... its not a good idea to merge Composites and Complex Profiles... How would we assign Complex Profiles to Roofs, Slabs and Shells?

Anyway... Another advantage to the Nested Complex Profiles and Composites wish, is that it could take advantage of an also proposed Dedicated Shared Resource File. Where a Project Manager could define project specific nested CP's and Composites (Based on Core and Finish CP's and Composites in a Office Standards Resource File), along with all resources specified by the Client for that particular project. Like a BIM Material/Products Pallete.