Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by gester

  1. cove.tool is supposed to connect to vectorworks via plugin to be released this march.

    1. is this already working?

    2. is it available also for localized versions of vectorworks?


  2. On 7/14/2020 at 8:31 PM, Taproot said:

    @Donald G. Martin @gester  


    Would you be willing to post a sampling of some of the classes that you use so that we can get a sense of your naming strategy?



    we use sfb system in our polish vectorworks localization (this is a 1959 swedish system which is widely used in the benelux countries, especially in the netherlands). 

    the codes base on numbers, and the exterior walls are like '21 exterior wall some description', or '22 interior wall ssome description', or '31 opening in the exterior wall some description', '27 roof some description', a.s.o., according to the table below (sorry, i haven't found it in english, and it's the part of the whole).


    the system is pretty straightforward, it bases on the overall building structure, but has been examined and abandoned by the uk subjects while working on their classification, which became uniclass 2015.




    of course, you can use any classification system (including your own), but the presence of this option alone gives vectorworks an edge, when it comes to the mapping of the codes and guids.


  3. 1 hour ago, Christiaan said:

    ..The AEC UK BIM protocol says no more than one building to be modelled in a single file, with a separate container model to bring them together...


    such container would be a separately required (by polish law) site development plan (which is in a 1:500, or sometimes 1:1000 scale). this plan is in world coordinates (required by the authorities of the infrastructure planning), and with true north orientation, as opposed to the edifice models that are in 1:50 or 1:100. 


    the edifice models are referenced in the site model, and all changes in storeys are handled separately for each building. i use such a workflow for years, but i will listen to other options.


    • Like 1
  4. @jmanganelli 

    afaik the iesve is a costly application. similarly is (was?) with the ecodesigner star and its integration with archicad, where both licenses were necessary.

    isn't it the case with revit and iesve?


    i think that vw users are in need of a fast and reliable energy calculation tool, at best within the aplication and its price. the next step might be an integration with something bigger, but the energos level is pretty good for the designed calculations. not everyone can afford professional energy calculation applications.



  5. @ilimatiare 


    the wip work (iso 19650:1, cde environment) is supposed to be carried out in one technology standard for a particular branch. every shared work piece (export) is a noneditable information, and as ifc is supposed to be managed in the asset delivery on the building site. if you try to do it now, it may be disappointing, but as said: one branch (architect / structural engineer / mechanical designer a.s.o.) should each one use one specific data format for their piece of work.


    in the future

    the wip work is the same, but we will have an option to work on the pure geometry from the ifc in the dtv (editable design transfer view) mvd mode, regardless if it's the wip/shared/published part of the bim process. buildingsmart's decoupling (complete separation of geometry data from the alphanumeric for the ifc) is underway...


    the british bim level 3 is a common work on open formats in the iot environment.

    • Like 1
  6. we now use the sfb system from the design express localisation versions (dutch, french and polish have the same classing setup).


    as soon as the polish classification system is ready (currently we work in the polish chapter of the buildingsmart int'l on it - the priority is the emerging cci system based on the danish ccs and swedish coclass) it'll replace the sfb in the pl vectorworks version. we give it some 2 years...


    the integration of the building classification system in the bim authoring app is essential - otherwise the digital supply chain is not possible.


    the digital supply chain integration is a 3-step procedure:


    1. the objects in the 3d model are placed in the classification codes. the ifc export drags the classification codes with into the ifc models.

    2. the ifc guids are being mapped to the bsdd guids (bsdd = buildingsmart data dictionary - a martix to map all classifications between them, and with the ifc)

    3. the gtins (gs1 product codes) are being mapped to the bsdd guids via digital link.


    thus the delvered products and materials know where they are to be built-in into the physical asset, based on the model information. this connection remains for the management stage of the asset (at best as the digital twin). remember: the uk initiated the process of building a digital twin of the whole country...


    as for the digital supply chain: check out the dscibe (digital supply chain in the built environment) and digiplace, both started last year.


  7. coming back to design layers - i use many of them for each storey. there are a few reasons:


    - in the project sharing you reserve and check out objects by layers at best. checking by objects themselves might wind up chaotic.

    - the grouping of similar objects per design layer (e.g. slabs, walls, furniture objects, spaces or installations) helps better visibility control of the objects in the various display options.

    - the choice of layers for ifc exports is pretty straightforward, compared to setting up classes' visibility for these exports.


    i always model slab construction separately from the floor layers, but both are on the same design layer.


    as for classes - they should correspond to the classification system, e.g. omniclass in the north america, uniclass in the uk (they have the uniclass 2015 classing system in their vectorworks' release). so the classing of the design layers is not recommended in such a system unless you have one design layer for a storey (also not recommended - why then stories at all?).



    btw: i avoid 2d elements in the 3d space - all possible 2d's are in the annotations of the sheet layers.

  8. leed and breeam analyses base on the same energy calculations, maybe with the exception of the imposed proprietary rules, but it's an overlay.

    the results may be different, although the starting point is exactly the same. let's not get crazy about the official energy standards 🙂


  9. @jeff prince 

    generally you're right, but sometimes exact measures are necessary for the built-in professional equipment, like e.g. in the healthcare (even movable beds require there particular room for manoeuvring) or in the heating rooms.

    but, most of all, exact measures are required for digital twins of the physical assets, where the operational phase usually lasts decades. you never know how exactly modelled your asset should be for certain actions. if you don't need it today, you might need it in two months or years.

    unfortunately we still don't have reliable solids, automatically generated from point clouds.


    another thing are the as-built models, where the native models for ifc export are being checked against the point cloud surveys, an example of such application being bim & scan®'s autocor(tm). the designer's professional liability is at stake...


    • Like 1
  10. @Samuel Derenboim 

    yeah, the polish certification document for the usage permit is formally standardised.


    - the first page is the overall information of the building with the graphic display of its energy performance (enclosed is some older version before the tightening of the energy performance demand - the change is in the scope spread on the graphic ribbon - in this case the building doesn't comply with the requirements). the software can handle dwg imports, but not ifc models, so the calculations take approx. 90-95% of the creation time (a pretty cumbersome task, especially calculating walls and openings, depending on geographic directions), the rest is the adjustment of the installation systems. energy calculations are similar for all energy certification standards, what matters is the overall result, regarding particular requirements.


    - second page is the description of the installation systems


    - third page is the calculations with improvement recommendations


    - the last page is the guides and notes - usually left as it is.


    the certificate is valid for 10 years, and the creator is liable for any claims within this period. there's also a possibility to buy insurance for this scope, along with the professional designer's insurance.


    is it somehow similar in the u.s.a.?







  11. On 10/15/2019 at 6:37 AM, _c_ said:

    Ciao Zeno, do you use a common Z for all buildings or every building has its own project zero?

    Accordingly, how do you set up the Reference Elevation in the Export IFC Project settings?






    do you export one building or all of them in one ifc file?


    it's not possible to have many 'zero' levels in one vw file, the zeno's approach is the right one.

    you can but reference all edifices as separate design layers in a file with the whole plot setup (eg. all buildings are in 1:50 scale, and are referenced in the 1:500 raumordnungsplan)...



  12. @Samuel Derenboim 

    it seems like you try to calculate the exact wall areas outside of the energos tool. the energy calculations are being done in the energos, though, so the 'external' calculations don't really matter in the energy calculations. i wonder how the nyc authorities accept those quantity reports?


    i use the energos tool as 'designed energy calculations' which are required by the authorities for the building permit projects, but here in poland there's an another type of energy calculations for the usage permit. the latter one is defined by legislation and has a certain 4-page look with a special graphic display that can be obtained only in external sofwares for energy calculations for the polish market.


    On 6/17/2020 at 5:51 PM, line-weight said:

    Some more specific questions:

    1) I was interested in the bit about it being able to do u-value estimates for windows, based on me telling it the glass spec, frame type, etc. Does this take into account the number of framing members and their sizing or does it just provide a generic U-value for a window with overall size of X width and Y height? In other words, where the glazing U value is better than the framing U value, will I get a better result from a window that it just one perimeter frame and a big frame of glass, compared to a similar sized window which is subdivided into multiple casements and which has a different frame:glazing ratio?


    the window producers provide the necessary data (separately for the frame, the glazing, and for the whole item), but in the the end the u-values are being (might be) typed in the window parameters manually, so you can shape the output by yourself.


  13. hi,

    the ifc2x3 enabled exporting of composed objects (walls, slabs, roofs) by components. there's nothing like that in the ifc4 settings, so the components are not available for quantities' calculations in special softwares (screenshots below depict the bim vision imported ifc4).






    is it some step back, or is it by design?


    and btw, is there the design transfer view export in the pipeline?





    • Confused 1
  14. hi,

    is there a way to calculate spaces' areas when there is a space height constraint?

    in poland there is a norm (and an authority regulation) that the spaces are not counted at all when they have the height lower than 140 cm, the spaces with the height between 140 and 220 cm are counted with 50%, and for the heights above it's already 100% of the space area counted. it is pretty important for the projects with slanted roofs.


    i've found the space record field value of net volume (counted), but apparently there's no way to divide this volume (and further on for space area) for different heights in order to calculate the spaces correctly.

    i enclose the v2020 file with one space under the roof...


    any help would be appreciated.




  15. hi pat, thanks for looking into it.


    the thing is that the db call doesn't return the values that are hidden in the hardscape's slab for the 3d view. it just doesn't recognize this as components of the slab style.

    here's the hardscape oip screenshot:




    here's the slab style




    here's the resulting report, comparing two objects: one a slab, and another one a hardscape, both created from the same slab style




    here's the report data:




    am i doing anything wrong?



  • Create New...