Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gester

  1. ...to mesh not only 3d tools and the standard aec tools, but also marionette tools. generally there are two methods of designing: either space programming, or shapes' manipulation. of course mostly there are the combinations of both. we have adjacency matrix as a good start for space programming, and the massing model-to-floorplan functionality for 3d modelling come the edifice model. the latter one is not very optimal, as it has two flaws, at least: the resulting storey walls are not exactly closed when the shape is not angles only (screenshots), and we don't have slanted walls. in this way we can't freely model what we want... rob
  2. michael/pat, ok, the difference between the calls is clear now. it means i have to choose the right criteria for the spreadsheet function call to get the result. thanks. rob
  3. thanks, guys your suggestion for the database works, but for the spreadsheet doesn't. i have for the whole wall one class, and for the component another class. neither of the values for the class (c - criteria, wall nor component class) returns any viable result. and why is exactly the function call different for the spreadsheet and for the database row?
  4. i can't get the compareabyname nor compareabyclass functions to work. can somebody clarify if it's only a database feature and how exactly to use it? thanks.
  5. there's no 'tablet + mouse' option (which i'm currently using for cad/bim)...
  6. wes, there are a few good thoughts behind the storey-level-system, but the result is somehow messed up. first of all: - we need storeys for the bim ifc-based energy calculations (exported with brep activated - space boundaries level 2) - we need a limited set of storey levels because of files' exchange between designers working on one edifice (but with work sharing this is not an issue anymore) now i think the best workaround begins with starting to think as a contractor's foreman: they need for each storey a clear level ('meterriss' for zoomer - it's a line drawn on the walls 1 meter above the future finished floor level). if somebody ever visited the building site, they know that no world levels are necessary, the contractor needs a clear 'z' height above or below the fixed level for each floor (storey). i would do the following: - set up each main storey level at the finished floor level. - add the design layers for elements, like walls, slabs, furnishing a.s.o. (matching the standard storey level names) at the appropriate main storey levels (= finished floor for ground floor, 1st storey, 2nd storey a.s.o.) - in this way all the elements can get the manual 'z' value above the finished floor, which is understandable for every construction worker - those values you can read from the pio. an example: a design layer for suspended ceilings has a level of the ground floor finished floor, if there are different suspended ceilings you can see their height above finished floor in the 'z' values in the pio - you don't have to calculate deltas. another advantage is that we can assign any number of design layers to a storey, they are all set up at finished floor level. - all other storey levels that don't have design layers attached may be used for the association of the, say, claddings, plasters, tiles, or similar building elements, so they may remain at levels other than the finished floor. rob
  7. i was wondering how did you come on those almost 3k posts within 2.5 yrs, but it's the proof: you put everywhere your 2c, even when you don't really have much to say no offence, though your pluses are probably justified...
  8. so as for now, the bcf manager only works when some 3rd party application generates a proper ifc feedback for the vectorworks file and saves it as a bcfzip. there's no automatic recognition of the geometry clash issues from within vectorworks, and the manual one is pretty cumbersome. btw, both buttons 'new' and 'close' don't do much, beside irrevocably clearing all existing topics by the 'new'. if the report is not saved, the information gets lost.
  9. there's always a question if an app should continue to develop like it used to do, or just to write it from scratch facing the bim evolution. i also don't really believe a cad app may be that improved to serve the whole bim environment. even one of the youngest apps (revit) still has troubles with its over-parametrized approach. in this way we, as vw users, are really better off with the software's flexibility in the parameter settings, although it means to have to manually set up many things after they are already modelled - architects don't like such approach, as they are supposed to be artists, and not programmers. i'm really curious if the rewriting of the vectorworks' file format will bring more bim functionality into the application... rob
  10. why, ifc is a living system it's constantly improving. coming back to bricscad: i've always encountered compromises when it comes to engineering functionality. if something is further ahead, something lags behind. what is it in this case? textures, components, ifc data?
  11. ifc is a very well thought classification system, to suggest any modification would mean to have to co-work in the product room of the buildingsmart alliance. not a cheap endeavor, i'm afraid...
  12. ok, how do you want to show it in 2d drawings? you'll probably need the proper section level - and an adjustable one (higher or lower along the wall length where the stacked elements exist)...
  13. actually the hierarchy starts with 'project', then 'site', and then the elements you've listed.
  14. as i agree with the second part of the post, for the first sentence i don't think it's a good idea, when referring to bim. please keep in mind that a federated model is not a homogenous thing, but a patchwork of different contributions. you guys encounter both designers' input, and parts of it will be replaced by the workshop models by the manufacturers and other delivery sources. the layers would have to be living also in the bim environment, just to enable splitting the content into many different objects and elements - or you find a way to decompose your super layer and populate it with 3rd party contribution. if you're on the building site and from the contractors' pov, the model is not a clean aggregate of geometries, but a composite of many objects and aspects where 3d geometry is not the most important thing, sometimes even of a very least importance.
  15. the most important feature for bim is the slanted walls that are still missing in vectorworks. i can live with the other ones, as long as they can work with 3rd party bim evaluation softwares, or i can find workarounds. let's focus on what's really important for the full-fledged bim, and in comparison with the competition.
  16. on the other hand, the multistorey elements would be great, because it may work well with the schedules, and generally with 4d models and animations, but it has to be compliant with the energy calculations from the models (6d), too, which heavily relies on the storey principle.
  17. @Tom Klaberwe need objects' containers that can be assigned to the storeys, as said above, the classes are not enough. practically every cad/bim software uses layers, so the whole action would be to rename design layers into something different. or do you want to invent another control level, beside storeys and classes, and not being layers? well, then the whole software will have to be designed a-new.
  18. @line-weightit really doesn't matter if you call it world-z or xyz or global-z or fischer-z (sorry for the musical drift) or the likes. if something is depending on the storeys' structure, you can't rely on the values named before. we need storeys, so we need the relative 'z' values, there's no way around it. sure, the 3d modelling or animation packages don't use storeys, so they can work with the global project 'z', but vectorworks is an engineers' tool.
  19. we're modelling in the relative heights, not some world z-values. you don't know how will your edifice be placed on earth, and even if you know, when the relative zero of the edifice changes (it may change many times, too), all your world z-heights go to hell. nobody designs in world heights. the storey principle with associated levels in vectorworks is ok, and should remain so. rob
  20. there is no chance that the 2d drawings will disappear soon. the model, as rob snyder from bentley research team points out, is not favouring the information focus. that's why they e.g. develop hypermodelling. i don't see any of the construction workers willing to dispense the 2d drawings for their work. looking at the models yes, but no, say, bricklayer party will go out to the site without physical (read: printed) base of their work. or we assume that the houses will be printed by the machines, then probably you may be right.
  21. the only advantage would be to have the armedia vr model working again: they have probably lost track with vectorworks because you could have seen the model only when everything was on one layer
  22. i've read this thread partially, but the initial ideas don't make much sense for me. the first thoughts, before i read the whole thread. 1. we need objects that can be exported to the ifc model, and we need objects that can be omitted. classes alone wouldn't be enough. 2. dropping the design layers and maintaining the stories won't make the elements spanning more than one story. the elements will still be assigned to their proper story. 3. we need stories for the ifc definition, and for the energy calculations. no item outside of the story will get calculated. look at the ifc hierarchy: the project, the site, the edifice, the story, the space... do you want to turn ifc upside down? 4. what are the 'world levels' for? another name for known functionalities? 'world levels' get created when the model is in google earth anyway - assigned to the world coordinates. 5. generally dropping the design layers would mean to loose one of the control levels. then vectorworks won't be any different than archicad, and, sorry, autocad (when adesk manages to have it in n dimensions, too. although i know that autocad will be sacked one day ;)) rob
  23. thanks, zoomer. i'm still disgusted that the light objects from the library don't provide the light 3d geometry. i have to chew on what's been said in the thread.
  24. thanks, mark. you're a great help
  • Create New...