Cover & Background Fills for Beams

[Anonymous]

Beams should have Cover Fills and Background Fills!
There should be different fills for Cover Fill and Cut Fill, like Slabs, and not like Walls, where the fill is the same!

Right now I am modelling a pergola and I have to use the Fill Tool to cover the beam so it could be clear which one is above the other. I lost as much time drawing the Fills as making the Beams!

[Anonymous]

Does graphisoft see all the polls together in one place or do they have to go into each topic to view the poll results?

[Laszlo Nagy]

They need to go into each Wish Forum (there are 9 of them) to see the results of poll in those Forums.

[Anonymous]

It appears to me that in AC17 (image below) beams which do not occupy the same vertical space (ie. one is fully under the other as in floor joist / bearer situation) don't intersect (clean up), but if they have any overlap in the vertical space they do clean up with each other. STILL NO COVER FILL THOUGH!

Same situation in AC16 (which I am working in) and they always clean up with each other if they touch, (top of bearer + bottom of joist) but not if there is separation (as little as 1mm)

Is this correct?

[Laszlo Nagy]

Yes, I believe this is the intended way of operation.

[Barry Kelly]

Yes two beams that touch in 3D are considered now to 'collide' and therefore will appear as one in 2D.
Barry.

[Anonymous]

Barry wrote:
Yes two beams that touch in 3D are considered now to 'collide' and therefore will appear as one in 2D.
Barry.

I think it is the other way in 17 Barry. If they touch but don't overlap at all they are shown not to merge together, in 16 they did merge.

My point, though not well expressed, was that the behaviour of beams has been changed, but still no cover fills.

[Barry Kelly]

Sorry I should have enlarged you image.
Beams with top and bottom 'touching' will still appear as separate beams in plan.
As soon as there is any overlap then they will 'collide' and become one in plan.

Personally I think they should only do this only when they have the same strength (building material) and the top surfaces are level with each other.
Otherwise one beam should always have priority over the other.

And surely it can't be too hard to add a cover fill which would also solve the plan problem.

Barry.

[Anonymous]

Barry wrote:
...Personally I think they should only do this only when they have the same strength (building material) and the top surfaces are level with each other.
Otherwise one beam should always have priority over the other.

And surely it can't be too hard to add a cover fill which would also solve the plan problem.

Barry.

I agree. With all of the above. Especially the last bit.

[Anonymous]

Seven years.
Over 100 votes, which presumably represents a much larger number of people experiencing the actual problem.
Our friends at Graphisoft never actually read these wishes.... do they?

[Anonymous]

I've been using Archicad for more than 15 years. I wholeheartedly support this request. It's a fundamental problem that beams do not have the same display features as the majority of other tools. Reflected ceiling plans are extremely difficult without being able to use fills in beams.