Jump to content

Amorphous - Julian

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    419

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Amorphous - Julian

    • Popular Post
    • Popular Post

    'Wall Styles' to reflect real-world construction

    in Wishlist - Feature and Content Requests

    Posted · Edited by Amorphous - Julian

    01 THE ISSUE WE SEE:

     

    • Wall tool works great for larger projects where 'wall types' are standardised to a limited number of variations.
       
    • But in smaller, bespoke projects where two sides of walls have a lot of combination of finishes (think 'bathroom on one side, bedroom on other' ... etc), the number of wall types required to reflect these conditions gets out of control. 
       
    • See enclosed images: 
      One one side of the wall  (see SIDE 1.png), we have a timber veneer finish bordering an adjacent mirror.  
      Even though the other side in both these finishing conditions are both paint finish (see SIDE 2.png), we have to create two different 'wall types' for this.
       
    • You can imagine how the different combinations of finishes can cause the wall types to spiral out of control quickly.
       
    • Plus, there are a lot of 'starting and stopping' of walls- Whilst in real-life situation, this wall would be built as one continuous core in the centre. 
       
    • The other disadvantage of the current method (refer to the elevations) is, when rendered, a junction line that is supposed to separate the finishes would not appear in elevation.
       
    • So, in order to show any kind of construction gap or joint between the two walls, we'll have to make yet another wall type, with a thinner 'component' that sets back from the finished surface, and we'd call this 'gap wall'
       
    • In other words, if we want a 5mm shadow-gap between the said mirror and the timber wall, we'll leave a 5mm gap between the two said wall types, and  fill the gap between the two walls with a 5mm long 'gap wall'.
       
    • This is not really a feasible way of building a BIM model. 

     

    02 THE SOLUTION WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE:

     

    • On a construction site, the 'core' (stud, masonry...) of the wall is always constructed first, and then the 'components' (gypsum, stucco, plywood...) are applied over them. 
       
    • Importantly, the 'core' is constructed continuously. 
       
    • It would be most helpful if 'WALL TOOL' is just the walls- giving us the ability to draw continuous 'core' walls, without 'stopping and starting' the walls to accommodate the finishes components.
       
    • If 'WALL TOOL' draws continuous 'Core Walls', there should be a 'FINISHES COMPONENT TOOL', where users can create 'Finishes Build-Up' styles that can be 'snapped' onto the 'Core Wall'.
       
    • This way, we can stretch the 'Finishes Component' along the surface of a 'Core Wall' long as it needs to be, and even have the option to add 'skirting, flush skirting, cornices' or the like to finish them off. 
       
    • To resolve the issue of displaying junctions between adjacent 'Finishes Components', perhaps we can be given the option to 'show/hide joint between Finishes Components', or even have the option to add trims between them. 
       
    • This concept would work great if the Doors and Window objects can intelligently penetrate these 'Finishes Components'.
       
    • The final point we would like to say the above method can be advantageous because it will allow each 'Finish Component' to be automatically tagged with a 'Finishes Tag'.
      This can be done by picking up on the properties of each 'Finishes Component' 

     

    SIDE 1.png

    SIDE 2.png

    Elevation 1.png

    Elevation 2.png

    • Like 6

    IPD Workflow and Documentation

    in Architecture

    Posted

    Hi Diogo, all those issues you have raised are valid but can be resolved by planning the model differently (as Christian as pointed out)

    1) If the first floor has a wall, and the second floor also have a wall, then just draw them as two different walls

    2) You can overcome this by doing an extra 2D layer with Dotted lines that you can turn on and off. But I agree that this is very frustrating!

    3) You can show the wall components in Section, but it takes a long while you get all the wall components set up correctly.

    And Christian, I agree with you on that may key elements is missing from Vectorworks. As an ARCHITECTURAL tool, some important tools that Diogo pointed out sorely missing.

    Furthermore, working on a model as a team presents a nightmare.

    ArchiCAD has many good points, but it has a bad interface for 2D drafting, and is more expensive.

    Revit does't run on macs.

    So Vectorworks, rather being the best choice, is the product that happens to fill in a particular void in the market. We'd love to see it being developed as a more meaningful collaborative tool.

    Debriefing DLVP vs referenced Layer

    in Architecture

    Posted

    Hey guys... just wondering whether this post should get further updates... or just let it died? I think it is an important conversation.

    Blimey- has your office resolved the speed problems by switching back to design layer referencing?

    Jeffery- I second Blime's point about 'workflow'. If you have more than one person working on a project, the task of modelling has to be spread between different people in the team.

    In any case, modelling+drafting are intertwined processes. It is not like when you finish modelling, you start drafting. These two processes are very much interactive and iterative.

    All the other CAD packages on the market now have much better teamwork interfaces (look at ArchiCAD, Revit etc), they also have a teamwork structure that keeps the model in one file to maintain its BIM integrity.

    Vectorwork's ability to link one file to another a really antiquated way of teamwork. Is Nemetschek planning a better, and different way of teamwork for Vectorworks?

×
×
  • Create New...