Another case in which it would be helpful to have different fills as an option is the one when you have to draw for example a low parapet with empty fill on plan (not sectioned) and a different wall fill on a section drawing.
firstly - i'm sure that this has been mentioned somewhere in the forum before, but i couldn't find it.
~/archiben wrote:No harm at all. Like fixing up text handling, the urgency of improvements to walls and composites needs to be reiterated frequently. The ongoing discussion about vertical composites is a timely parallel. As evidenced by my referenced post I feel that many of these issues would be helped along immensely by taking a comprehensive review of all the major tools and providing a consistent set of features: distinct plan and section attributes, show on multiple stories, elevation pen, fills in plan, etc. All of these features exist in one tool or another but are not universally implemented. Thus these wishes come up over and over. Instead of enhancing one tool at a time I'd love to see GS approach this holistically. A great benefit newbies and power users alike.
no harm in bring it to the fore again though, eh?
Laura wrote:for most applications it's fine. where i've often found myself wanting different fills is in masonry construction - bricks and blocks. it's actually more of a 'level of detail' issue i guess - a lot of our buildings are small enough that we draw at a large(?) scale.
I don't see why your walls can't be represented the same in plan as they are in section.