Composite Creation Framework Definition

[Aaron Bourgoin]

Composites creation should bebe brought into closer alignment with the thinking behind Partial Structure Display:

I would like these two tools be defined with "Finishes" "Membranes" "Substrates" and "Cores" and allow for the visibility of any or all of these in predefined views. Substrates and Membranes are two different things and now have to be categorized in a Composite under the same rubric - Other. Construction logic suggests you need one for the other.

Membranes, be they made of air, butyl rubber or polythene, are more typically "visible" in section views. Perhaps their behaviour in plan vs section might also be considered.

What these two tools currently call "Other" should be more closely examined and rejigged to more closely resemble what a building assembly is actually made of and how they are interrelated. the word "Other" is, like it's cousin "Custom", a bit too vague.

[Laszlo Nagy]

I agree that the three types available and hard wired are inadequate.
What I would like is the ability for user defined Composite skin types.
Lets say ArchiCAD would allow you to have 13 additional custom Composite skin/Complex component types in addition to the 3 available currently (Core, Finish, Other) for a total of 16. I suspect 16 different types would be adequate for everyone.
Then you could define Custom Partial Structure Display Options and for each of these you could define which skin/component types are visible/hidden. That would give the ultimate flexibility and provide for all use cases.

[Link]

I agree. If we add trim, cornice, etc to a complex profile it automatically shows up in plan. The only(?) way to eliminate it is to assign it to a finish and hide finishes in PSD. Problem is all your real finishes need to be assigned to 'other', so it's all ass-backwards.

Customizing would be great!

Cheers,
Link.