Wall fills turn corners like composites

[James Murray]

I would like fills to behave intelligently in rotated walls.

In a composite, you can set a skin to go around a corner in such a way that the orientation w/r/t the wall is maintained. I want this behavior for conventional-fill walls, without having to create a half-ton of single skin composites.

[James Murray]

...And in polygon walls, we don't even have the composite workaround to save us.

Here's a polywall for a fireplace. Fine, until you rotate it 45º. Well, you could duplicate the fill, and rotate the fill itself, to restore the proper plan appearance. But then when you go to the section, the rotated fill + the rotated section = back to ortho!

600.

[Anonymous]

I voted Essential, although I'm not sure what you do for curved walls

[Anonymous]

I would like fills to behave intelligently in rotated walls.

Seems like a case of the glaringly obvious.

We old ArchiCAD users have just been conditioned to accept this unintelligent behaviour without thinking.

[owen]

Seems like a pretty simple thing to fix doesn't it .. ALL wall fills should by default align to the wall reference edge.

So why are we still waiting ... it can't be hard to fix. We can see it works for composites so surely this can just be applied to other walls types?

As for curved walls I guess these a little harder, but we now have distorted fills for roofs so i think we are on the way to having fills distort with the curve.

[James Murray]

s2art wrote:
curved walls

They just need to break down a curved wall into 'segments' for the purpose of the fill. Not straight segments, not actually segment the wall, just the fill.

This image is a simulation of a 36-'facet'-per-circle arrangement. (BTW, that's a 4' grid.) Yes you can see some breaks, but the overall presentation is better IMO. The true curve distortion would be nicer of course, but I imagine that's more resource-intensive.

It's about pushing the appearance issue toward 'mild Archicad display quirk' and away from 'stupid-looking'.

[Anonymous]

As good a suggestion as any I suppose, James. I think there will still be issues, depending on the fill pattern and the radius / thickness of the wall, but maybe something GS could look at just the same.
Sorry to be a fly in the ointment. I don't mean to be negative, honest. Maybe it's just my pessimistic side showing itself.

An Optimist says the glass is half full, a pessimist says its half empty. An Engineer says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be!

[Eduardo Rolon]

s2art wrote:
An Engineer says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be!

Shouldn't it be:
An Engineer says the glass has to be twice as big as what the architect specified!

[Anonymous]

...or maybe "Oh no, we couldn't possibly do it in glass!"