Jump to content

Farookey

Member
  • Posts

    260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Farookey

  1. Hi... Stupid question, but... is your slab on a different layer to walls, and therefore you need 'Show/Snap/Modify Others' to be your 'Layer Option'?
  2. Hi... Maybe I missed something, but the bearing heights of the individual 'faces' of the Roof Object can be changed manually, as well as the type of that 'face' (gable, hip etc.) by simply clicking (once) on the blue square of the corresponding 'face'. I agree that it may take some getting used to but VW's roof tool, although very simple, still has a good few ways to manipulate it to get your desired roof. Sometimes, for complex roofs you may need to do some simple work-arounds but by understanding how it works this wouldn't be too much of a difficult task. I'm intrigued by this McMansion roof you talk of... Can you show me a pic of what you mean so I can determine how easy/difficult it would be to recreate? Thanks
  3. Good find TS... Has to be it... I use the following in my custom default schedule... Space.Area
  4. Strange that... You didn't mention your version of VW... It's working for me in VW2012 SP3
  5. Hi... By summarize, do you mean you dragged the 'SUM' icon from the top of the worksheet to the desired column of the database header? I tried the same thing, and it seemed to work for me, giving me the total area for those spaces with the same numbers. It however gave me 'dashes' for the room dimensions, which seems about right.
  6. Hi... Try this (work-around)... Go into the Label symbol... and in the text box which specifies the Room number... type a prefix of what u want... It'll look something like this... 1.#2# Where #2# is what represents your 'Room number' field... HTH
  7. DW... The 'beam' depths are not always the same (as I mentioned previously), as they may vary depending on area and project, etc. This is not for a specific file. I am creating custom default content to be used for office standards throughout the office with as much ease as possible. The idea with these sections is to minimize annotations being drawn over certain areas, but at the same time making it easy to utilize the tools in order to achieve the desired results. Currently, the walls are set up as per materials, and sizes available. The finish components and their attributes are all set by class, but the block-work is set by 'Object Class'. This is so that 1 styled wall can have a different look depending on the class it is in. They are also not bound (by default) to any level type in particular, as this will be a manual operation, where the height of the wall is determined by the class it is in (or vice versa). Neither are any of the components bounded by any offsets. I am totally aware of the 'sacrifice' of automatic classes and bounding options by doing it this way, but this is how the main director at the office wants it to be. Note that the external component of the wall should run continuously up to meet the wall on the floor above, and the interior render should (seem to) stop below the slab. Hence, if the (relatively) accurately drawn slab is displayed 'in front of' the other geometry, the desired effect can be achieved. The Slab shown has 3 components: (From Top) the floor finish with screed, the actual slab, and the beam. The attributes for the slab and beam components are the same. The 'beams' are created by manually clipping that particular component out of the Slab object. The different components of the slab styles are also bounded to different parts of the walls. With the addition of stories which has also been set-up, drawings can be carried out relatively simply by my colleagues, with a certain office standard. I am aware of ways to achieve this on an individual bases by drawing the EXACT way it is built, but with simplified defaults, I wish to do this with as little HEADACHES as possible! All I require is an explanation of how the stuff is DISPLAYED, or an acknowledgement that the way it VW currently displays is a bug! For the time being, we believe the current WORK-AROUND will suffice... Until of course we run into any unpredicted errors!
  8. DW... Both, ground and first floor slabs are bounded to the corresponding walls (i.e. ground floor slab is bounded to the GROUND FLOOR WALLS, and first floor slab is bounded to the FIRST FLOOR WALLS). In order for it to cut the below walls AS WELL, the slab would ALSO have to be bound to the (affected) walls of the floor below. This would get more complex with a more complex building, and calls for additional work each time the boundaries of a slab has to be picked, and may even open up another can of problems to 'work-around'! Yes, I do like the fact that it can be drawn EXACTLY as built, but for the purpose of simplifying things for the rest of the office, it may end up being more of a headache than anything. However, I accept that it would be the ideal way to create a model as it is to be built, but my intention is to make the process as effortless as possible, rather than pulling your hair out trying to figure out work-arounds for each individual instance. My main concern was the 'DISPLAY' of the elements involved, and this still does not answer the question of how 'WILD' the results are and WHY! Maybe if this can be simply explained so it is understood, then I'd be content that it is not a bug, but made so by design.
  9. Hi Again... Since I last spoke on the subject, we changed the way we wanted to create Wall Styles for the office in order to minimize the number of styles available as default content. This actually means that a few features of having Wall Styles had to be sacrificed, and the user would have a little more to do, than if it worked ideally with correct bounding heights etc. (not my idea). Office Standard stuff aside, I still managed to find a solution/work-around to my little problem. Maybe it is still a bug, which I believe it is, but it seems that if the ground floor slab is added to my initial set-up the Section VP brings the slab component 'to front'. But then I have a foundation layer below this which would have walls in it, and placing these, brings me back to square one! So, I added a footing to the Foundation layer made of the same slab component that I wish to show 'in front'. However, it only (finally) showed correctly when the (foundation) walls were 'sent to back', and the slab in front. It is doing some weird stuff, after a good set of playing around with it, but at the moment this is the best solution which can easily be explained and executed to my colleagues. I still think it is a bug though, and would prefer a more stable (and logical) solution, rather than having to work-around if VW can hear me! Working Slab [img:left]http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=6888&filename=Working%20Slab.png[/img]
  10. Hi... Just confirming that this is a VW(2012 and possibly 2011) issue... Can the 2D attribute (in Top Plan) of a styled slab object not be mapped manually when the 'Slab Attributes' are set by class to a fill such as 'Tile'? It seems to work when it is set manually in the 'Slab Attributes' dialog as opposed to by class... VW bug or design?
  11. Hi... You need to add a field to that cell you cleared... You can try one of the User Fields to add custom text to them. I think it'll be something like... =('Door'.'UserFld1') You have 10 User Fields I believe... Hope this helps...
  12. Hi... As far as I know... Not as yet... Been asking the same question for ages!
  13. Hi Christiaan... Question... Why would you need a clear/invisible texture? I would: Have a separate class for the cavity, which can then be turned off for the render. This also works in OpenGL. Your thoughts...?
  14. Hi... Should be possible using the ID Label tool I think. But don't quote me on it! It just needs to be set up correctly, and it SHOULD work like a charm... I don't have the time to explain it right now, but if I do have the time, I'll post back (if you have not yet gotten through) K?
  15. Hi... By DLVP, do you mean References? If so, use the Navigation Palette to update the Reference...
  16. The only way that this can be drawn exactly as built, is if the block-work stops below the beam. And the reason I stated that I did not want to do this is because I will end up with a Wall Style for every beam depth in a drawing. How VW works with displaying whats in front and behind is difficult to grasp interestingly enough. That's why I think (if it is not a bug) then it needs to be fixed. For instance (you can try it yourself), place 2 walls, preferably with different fills in the same space or overlapping each other, and cut a section through them. Toggle the Merge Component settings in Advanced Properties, and you will notice that the display of which wall is in front changes. If in plan, wall 'A' is behind wall 'B'... With it unchecked: Wall 'A' shows in front (in section) With it checked: Wall 'A' shows behind as was drawn But there are other factors that I am exploring now...
  17. It's bound to the walls on the story above (Story-2). Hence the interior finish (of the wall) is cut out by the floor finish. This is working fine. I do not expect it to cut the walls below which it is not bound to (hence my slab thickness offset of 4"). It would cut the walls in the below story only when they are bound to them. But this would not be good practice; to bound the slab (above) to the walls below. Do you understand what I mean by the problem to do with the display? Why do the walls take preference (sent to front) after that merging components option is selected?
  18. The finished floor is bound to the inside of the core component of the wall, as you can see in the image, and the slab and beam components are bound to the outside of the core component of the wall. The problem is in the display...
  19. Sorry... Yes, roof accessories don't play nice with this method unfortunately... I would usually do these as separate elements if I have to any way.
  20. The beams are part of the Slab Style. An additional component below the slab portion of the 'Slab'.
  21. Hi... The shape you place in the 'Roof Group', does not need to cut or clip anything. You merely leave it there, and exit the 'group'. I use it all the time, and it's brilliant! I normally draw it outside of the group in the correct place, and then paste it in place inside of the 'Roof Group'. Try not to cover an entire face of a roof. The only issue is that the bearing line does not disappear in plan view... Let us know if this helps... NO NEED TO DECOMPOSE THE ROOOF
  22. bcd... It would work in this case. But where there are different beam sizes etc., it would require further duplications of wall styles. What I am trying to do is create default wall styles and slab styles that can be used as an office standard, without having to do much further editing each time a different type occurs. The idea is to keep this further editing to a minimum, and it should work, without work arounds, as this adds more confusion to the others in the office. If you get what I'm saying...
  23. Hi Vincent... Probably should have mentioned that all that is shown are 2 walls (story 1 and story 2) on top of each other, and one slab. They are all styled with components; wall is block-work with internal and external finish, and slab with finished floor, slab, and beam. Also, as stated before, the layer stacking order seems NOT to have any affect on the display. So, the first image is how I want it displayed, but I need to merge the components with same attributes... Thanks again
  24. Close enough.... Thanks... Now, comments on the problem?! :-)
×
×
  • Create New...