vertical composite wall

[Anonymous]

I read large debates about "real 3d" versus 2.5 (ok 2.75). I personally appreciate many advantages of the "not 3d" plan, in term of efficiency (rather then formal coherence, but in real life you often have to cheat to get an accurate drawing...)
But as a pragmatic step to get more from the "plan section", I would first ask simply for wall plan representation to be separated from section representation (pens and hatching) so we can draw hidden walls in plan, regardless of the section representation (like other tools like slab, in fact)
Then... COMPOSITE WALLS. Not in thickness but VERTICALLY, to superimpose several walls elements in one step.
We many times have the problem of superimposed walls in one " real world story" with some half or intermediate secondary stories especially around staircases. And also many wall height that does not correspond to story height in some part of the building and small walls "not cut" in plan and variation of thickness and...
I do not know about people in this forum but the only solution we got was to multiply hidden layers in plan and/or in section and sophisticated layer combination (thanks to the navigator) so the model produce both quiet accurate plans and sections.
We also use pseudo stories (I hate that, how do you call? "not IMHO"? "not BIM"? Please, spell for me just once "IMHO" "BIM" and other mysterious coding for what you know... ).
Many of that could be avoided with composite that allow to set the representation of each part (hidden, viewed, cut) with pens and hatch. It would also solve most of the "cut plan level" ambiguity.
Vertical composite does not seem so complicate to me and typically 2.75 AC oriented (excuse me...), is it?

[Anonymous]

i think that this is already on the wish list..and there is a poll..

[Anonymous]

oupps
missed it
where?

[__archiben]

philippe

http://www.graphisoft.com/community/archicad-talk/viewtopic.php?t=573&

IMHO = "in my humble opinion"
BIM = "building information model"

and other mysterious 'codes'!:
HTH - hope this helps
IFAIC - as far as i'm concerned
IFAIK - as far as i know
there are many more . . .

~/archiben

[Anonymous]

Thanks Ben, I'll print it
so replace my with a "not BIM"
Found the wish about wall plan versus section (different sectional fills)
What about that I call "vertical composite"? Go a little bit further without completely upset the wall tool (some wishes asking for almost a free form tool).

[__archiben]

philippe

the link i posted there was about composite wall flexibility - it was exactly what you were talking about, however i think that you expressed it in a better way.

~/archiben

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I did not finish, about the composite wall flexibility subject, I understood that the wish was not to superimpose but just to adjust height of the different wall composition (in thickness). Which is different

[__archiben]

Philippe wrote:
Sorry, I did not finish, about the composite wall flexibility subject, I understood that the wish was not to superimpose but just to adjust height of the different wall composition (in thickness). Which is different

you are right - i think that what the 'composite wall flexibility' post was trying to achieve was the same as you - except that you have taken it further and expressed it well.

i agree with you that these BIM 'components' (of which composite walls are one) really do developing in most cases in order to to improve the documentation aspect of them.

it is an essential part of the virtual building process and will (hopefully) eventually let us simply design and build the building without having to spend the time on the workarounds that we currently in order to document it.

~/archiben

[Karl Ottenstein]

Not sure how to vote on this one until I understand better why vertical composites are needed. If it is related to doors/windows ... then this is an alternative solution to a different (old) wish, which I'm not sure has been placed as a poll since we moved to this new forum.

The old wish was for windows and doors to optionally cut holes through whatever walls they overlapped ... then you could easily have a door or window span several separate walls. Now, we have to create empty openings in each wall other than the wall into which the window is placed and drag those openings around with the window, make sure they are omitted from schedules, etc., etc. A mess.

If the practical use of vertical composites is just to address windows/doors, then I prefer the hole cutting solution so I can build walls as separate entities the way they will be built in practice. But I'm always keen on new ideas and ways of working ... so please describe in more detail what vertical composites would do for you. And, would you also wish for hotspots at the vertical transitions for dimensioning in section, etc.?

Karl

[Anonymous]

I cannot understand why you would prefer to do it step by step as in reality.
The main difference here is that during design you are willing to choose compare and decide. If you have already decided on what you will do and there will be no change at all then doing it the way you suggest is ok but what if you are just probing, why not having it as a parameter.

Default will be one and we could choose vertical devisions idividual heights and even a 3d hotspot tweaking.