EN
Often I need to create some kind of wall which will be trimmed on the top part in diagonal. For example a wall along stairs ...
To do so there is several approach :
- Create a roof and trim with roof and hide roof or
- Create a roof and crop
- Create a morph from wall but it lost some editing possibility (and morph editing is messy)
- Create a special profil in 2D
- Solid element operation and then hide operator element
They are all taking time and need to create other component to arrived to such result.
After all there are already several way to create wall with different thickness for example but this is only for the 2D plan.
I which there would be a fast way to do the same "verticaly", editing wall height at both end of the wall :
This post was prompted by other recent wishes for changes to the renovation filter which got me thinking about how I wish a CAD/BIM application would handle change. I reckon that implementation of an approach outlined below would be technically taxing and likely too much a leap for now - so perhaps it's more of a dream then a wish.
I think that the current approach is limited in such way that it won't get fixed by adding more Renovation Statuses and the ability to set Show On Renovation Filter to multiple filters. Besides being hard to overlook and manage the fact that the current solution is nothing more than a way to control element visibility and element display leaves it with two crucial limitations:
- the inability for one element to have multiple configurations,
- the inability to sequence operations.
These limitations forces the creation of additional elements in order to handle change or alternative designs which is inefficient, increases the risk of errors/discrepancies, and at odds with the idea of BIM.
Outline to a new approach
The outlined approach hinges on the introduction of some new abilities:
- Ability to set up different 'configuration states' for the model which are fundamentally distinct and across which the configuration of individual element can vary.
- Ability to create monadic unidirectional and dynamic linkage between 'configuration states' so that a state can get it's initial configuration from one other state.
- Ability to control which 'configuration state' is active for modeling input.
A setup like below could be used to model a project involving an existing building and alternative designs.
- In the initial state A the elements of the existing building is modelled.
- By creating a new state B and linking it to A its possible to represent changes to the existing building.
- By creating additional states C1 and D and linking them both to B it is possible to represent alternative designs.
- By creating additional states C2, C3 and link them linearly to C1 is possible to sequence the project into phases.
Each element in the model gets a status based on what is done to it and in which configuration state. So for each element in the model there is a record for its status in each configuration state with entries like: Created in A; Existing in B; Modified in C1; Demolished in D.
Views are created based on these statuses in a way similar to Renovation Filters with the difference that it is set for configuration states. This nullifies the need to set visibility at element level in order to view different phases or alternatives.
Hi,
Bring the SketchUp file format into the Publisher so we can automate exports of SketchUp files.
1. Open up a 3D View Point
2. Go to File > Save As...
3. Select the Location, choose a File Name, select a File Type and click Save
4. Choose the Export Options from the dialog box, most importantly the SketchUp Version.
5. Click OK.
This would ensure that the model is always exported in the desired SketchUp version, together with other items, in an already set location, all with just one click.
edit: Added some emoji, because why not.
Hey!
No reaction to multi-segment Columns to the Zones after updating them. There is no automatic solution, only a handle Zone, which is unacceptable.
Here is an answer of the GS Technical support:
This is a known issue, DEF-7187. Unfortunately, we haven't received many reports regarding this, so the issue is currently on hold. The workaround is to use single-segment columns.
This limitation has not been fixed yet in Archicad 26 and Archicad 27 3002. Many users need it and have a real problem with it in big projects.
How many reactions do you need to fix it? 10? 100? 1000 upfingers?
Being unable to turn the top part of the window in a section view has to be one of the biggest drawbacks of using Reveals and Wall closures.
I have no idea how this has not been addressed yet.
What's the point of claiming a complete BIM environment when what you see in 2D is not represented properly in the 3D model and sections.
If there is somewhere on the forum for this to be fixed please direct me to it so I can upvote it. This is just unacceptable.
Operating system used: Windows
Drawing a flat roof in Archicad can be tedious, often requiring numerous coping elements and solid operations. In contrast, Revit offers a more elegant and straightforward approach. This process could be significantly improved by:
- Allowing mesh elements to support composite structures
-Enabling the definition of composite layers with either variable or constant thickness
These enhancements would allow any flat roof to be modeled using a single mesh element, with subsequent modifications reduced to a matter of seconds. The same applies to inclined garage floors and other complex geometries, where current workflows demand excessive manual adjustments. Introducing these improvements would streamline the design process and significantly increase modeling efficiency.
Another wish that I have posted in the old Wishforum (I think) but did not make it here.
Curtain wall is a great tool for catering not only patterned facades but also to solve some parts of model where library objects are not good enough (eg. Door/Window). But the limitation for now is that if the reference line or boundary of the Curtain wall is curved, it is segmented based on the scheme of the CW.
On the first picture, in Edit mode, frames are segmented if I make curved boundary of the scheme.
On the second picture it is visible forced segmentation based on the scheme.
We need a possibility to set if it is supposed to be segmented or curved.
PS: I'm aware of an workaround where I can set the the scheme to be more dense and then in Edit mode delete unwanted parts but that creates too much elements in the project and I can not correctly schedule panels.
Summary
The symbolic tree objects placed in plan should show a corresponding symbolic side view in elevation.
Explanation
The tree objects all have various compromises when viewing in elevation.
To my mind, the most appropriate visually are the type as below:
However, these 2D side views can only be placed in elevation, not on the model, and can only appear behind or in front of all the 3D elements. This means that if you have trees which should be in different planes (so, behind one wall but in front of another) this can't be represented.
Annoyingly these objects, when placed on the model with a 2D symbolic plan view, have a height represented in the elevation view as highlighted below, but only as a rectangle:
It would be extremely useful to have this as being the 2D symbolic side view, aligned parallel to the elevation line. Especially as the options for the side view cover an acceptable amount of tree types for typical use.
Alternatives
With the Detailed Tree, when the settings are high enough to look good, the elevation drawing PDFs end up being large files. With certain submissions via websites having upload limits (namely, planning) file sizes need to be kept to a reasonable size (not to mention it being just plain inefficient!).
The Simple Tree model is certainly better for file sizes, but the 'layers' which decrease in size to give the tree depth don't look particularly good, especially the ones perpendicular to the view just giving vertical lines.
One solution I have taken to is importing a 2D DWG tree elevation, tracing it with the morph tool, then placing it in the correct position in the model to give the desired effect, then using a different layer for the trees in plan view. Whilst an archaic process for a BIM software, it does provide the drawing I want to see.
For the Norwegian (and other scandinavian/cold countries) it would be handy to have the ability to assign outside and inside areas of a roof.
We tend to have a lot of insulation, but there is no need for insulation on the outside. If the roof tool had an extra feature where you could draw a fill/area to designate a separate zone for a separate composite, the roof tool would be much more useful. As it is, using two separate roof objects is suboptimal.
Nothing here yet. Try changing your filter criteria!
