EN
The attached image illustrates a persistent issue in Archicad: the software does not reliably respect the visual hierarchy between cut lines, drafting lines, and hatch fills. Even within a single element, non-cut lines and symbolic fills can sit on top of cut lines, producing incorrect drawings that must be manually corrected. This is not a marginal case or a graphic preference; it is a structural problem in how Archicad manages 2D priority.
Core issue
In section and elevation views, Archicad generates a symbolic 2D representation in addition to the cut geometry. However, the system does not enforce a consistent rule that cut lines must always be on top. Drafting lines and symbolic fills often overlap these cut edges, creating drawings that contradict standard drafting logic. The user has no direct control over this internal hierarchy, which forces tedious manual cleanup.
A second, related limitation
Plane management for 2D symbolic elements in façades and elevations is extremely limited. A familiar example is trees: a 2D tree symbol sometimes cannot simply be sent to the background behind a 3D building volume. To achieve a proper hierarchy, users must insert a patch with a hatch fill to mask geometry. This is cumbersome, fragile, and fundamentally unnecessary in a BIM tool.
What Archicad should provide
A coherent system would include:
-
Automatic cut-line dominance
Cut edges of an element should always appear above that element’s drafting lines and symbolic fills. No exceptions, no workarounds. -
True plane-based 2D management
Each component in sections, façades, and elevations should have a controllable drawing plane (background, standard, foreground). This would eliminate the need for masking patches. -
Background/foreground control for all objects
2D tree symbols, entourage, and custom GDL representations should be easily placed behind or in front of 3D geometry without breaking model logic. -
Consistent hierarchy across all 2D outputs
Cut surfaces, symbolic lines, drafting lines, fills, and annotations should follow clear, predictable rules that users can adjust as needed.
Why this matters
Incorrect overlaps undermine the clarity of construction drawings, force users to rely on patches and manual fixes, and reduce confidence in Archicad’s 2D reliability. The tools are powerful, but the underlying line/plane management has not evolved in years. A modern BIM platform should not require masking tricks to solve problems that should be automated.
A more robust system would improve precision, reduce drafting overhead, and bring Archicad’s 2D output closer to the standards expected in architectural documentation.
Open