Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stéphane

  1. Another way to do it, knowing you can snap an edge or a line but not (apparently) a surface : - Draw a 3D poly from one edge of the roof to another one, going through the desired point. - Snap a 3D Locus on that 3D poly. Not as simple as I wish, but it's something...
  2. @Tom W., I'm not sure to understand your question. Edge conditions ? What I did : - draw two squares in 2D plan view - convert them into Roof Faces - give them different angles - line the top of them up in elevation - connect them with the Connect/Combine Tool -> proper mitered joints - clip a hole in them -> no more mitered joints - reconnect them with the Connect/Combine Tool -> bug
  3. @CipesDesign, trying to be smarter than I really am, I tried to do this with a Clip Cube in an axonometric view in order to be faster but I cannot snap my 3D Locus on the cut plane (the part that is red). Is this normal, or is it a simple setting to tweak ?
  4. May I invite you to try connecting these faces as shown below ? TEST_connecting roof faces.vwx
  5. Great suggestions, @CipesDesign and @markdd, thank you ! Sometimes the solution is out of the box. I still believe that it could, ideally, be more straight forward, but at least I can move on now.
  6. So, absolutely nobody in this world has the same issue ? Or the whole world print their elevation with the wrong thickness ? I am surprised by your silence.
  7. I have a roof. I want to measure the height of it at a specific point somewhere in the middle of its surface. How to achieve this ? What I used to do until now is use the 3D Locus Tool, click in the middle of my roof, select my 3D Locus, write down its Z value. It doesn't always work anymore. Beside this, I don't understand why something that should/could be simple, is so complicated. My general goal is to set the Z values of my pillars connecting two tilted geometries. If you have an easier way to achieve this, you are most welcomed !
  8. I think @Tom W. summarize pretty well the extras here : And this is exactly why I prefer the Roof Tool over the Slab Tool to make my underground parking slabs, where drainage slope are not negligible anymore, and easier to do.
  9. It's a bit the same issue we have for connecting roof faces properly : It works only for simple structures. When you get a more complex one, best case : you spend a whole day making it work exactly as you want to; next day your engineer send you an e-mail saying that you cannot and need to spend another day to correct it. Worse case : it doesn't work. This exemple sounds a bit stupid but that's actually the very reason why you don't solve these issues at the beginning of the project. And that's why we need to be able to draw drained slabs or roof completely flat, first. When the project is getting stable enough, you start going into the details.
  10. I would never yell at someone that is kind enough to share his experience. In order to answer to this, I think the question here is not that much how to build roofs, but how to draw roofs. The original topic : "How to join two roof faces ?". We found out that it was possible to do it for simple structures but not for complex ones (where "complex" stand for 1) roof with a hole; 2) intersection not perpendicular to the edge; 3) 0.000000° flat roof). This means that most of the times the tools to join roof faces are not usable. We all agree that flat roofs are never completely flat, because water need to drain and requires a minimum slope of 1.5%. When we say flat roof we actually say 1.5% tilted roof (Note that this 1.5% slope is not necessarily the last layer). For drainage it is not negligible; but for the drawings up to 1'':10'00'' (+/- 1:100) it is completely negligible. On bigger scale, we draw 2D details anyways. There are many reasons why we want to draw dead flat roofs : - As said, when we draw on small scales, at early stage of the project, where you still don't want to think about these details. - Then maybe, the first component and the last component are dead flat. The slope is given by a component in between. - Imagine you are crazy enough to draw your slope with the Drainage Tool on Slab, then you draw your slabs (which would be your roofs) completely flat and you give then the drainage slop with the Drainage Tool. Also, keep in mind that we actually draw tilted slabs with roofs because the Drainage Tool is a nightmare to use (I would say the issues are a bit similar to our "how to join two roof faces": it doesn't work when things are getting complex), but this is another topic. - The main reason is this one : tools are not usable to control slopes accurately ! And this is again why you don't draw your flat roof with a drained slab. I cannot agree more, with a reservation regarding the Drainage Tool ("sloping the surface") which is, in my opinion, unusable.
  11. I encountered the same issue when joint line is not perpendicular to the edge, exactly as you did. In case of a hole in the middle of the joint, it is even worse.
  12. Thank you very much, @Tom W., for your input. I did the very same test you described, and it works very well and everything is very nice, indeed. The only thing is that the structure you made is very simple, and it doesn't work so nice anymore in more complex situations. I could also live with a "flat roof being 0.1 degree". But this is not the only issue. For instance, add a hole in the middle of the joint and it won't work anymore. At least in my experience.
  13. Last thing we could do is ask @Matt Panzer for some inputs maybe...
  14. After having done several tests, I would share your conclusion. It is dysfunctional. - doesn't work if your roof has a hole in it - doesn't work if one roof face is flat - doesn't work if the intersection is not perpendicular to the roof edge
  15. Might have found the beginning of an explanation... It doesn't work properly when you connect a flat roof (0.0000000°) with a tilted roof. When I fake the flat roof (0.00000001°), it works better. I say "better" because there is still something weird happening but I cannot exclude it's a design issue. @line-weight, does your issue (the post you linked) involve a flat roof ?
  16. Thank you very much, @line-weight, for you quick answer. I have already tested this combine/connect tool, but it wasn't satisfactory. Is it the same problem you mentioned in your unanswered post ? Dual Object Connect join them vertically, as shown below. This is precisely what I don't want because it generates a "gap" resulting in an none-continuous component. Dual Object Combine give me an error and doesn't do anything. Theoretically, is it this mode I should use for my purpose ? Do you believe it could be a geometry issue ?
  17. Hello, I have two roof faces - highlighted in orange. I want them to intersect on my red intersection line as shown below. In other words, I want my edges A and B to be tilted - not vertical. Is there a way to do this ? The goal is to have nice continuous components in Section VP. I would appreciate your advices.
  18. In order to not let this topic fall in the oblivion pit (because I really need an answer), let me relaunch this topic with related questions : - How do you manage lineweight in section VP in your practice ? Do you set your class with its section attributes (typically thick lines) or its beyond section attributes (thin lines) ? - In my first post, did I expose my issue clearly enough ? Do you need further explication in order to answer ?
  19. Hello, I'm working on my workflow and there are still little things that I don't understand... A cut wall takes its component attributes and a wall beyond the section line takes its wall attributes. Somehow, this logic doesn't work on slabs. Why ? Am I missing something ? Is it a bug ? Is it as it should be ? My general problem is the following : Objects that are beyond section line need to have thin lines (0.05-0.10) Objects that are cut by the section line need heavier lines (0.18-0.25) Important objects (like structures) that are cut by the section line need even heavier lines (0.35-0.50) I haven't found yet the way to do it ! How to achieve this ? This is something I need to produce proper architectural plans. A workaround I am still using is to set a class attribute for Object Beyond Section Line in Advanced Properties. Issue with this workaround : - Surface Hatch will have the same color as other objects beyond section line (but it is a no go because I want my surface hatch to be colored and other objects to be black) Please see below a commented screenshot to illustrate my issues... I would appreciate your help and/or advice on best practice.
  20. Super nice news, thank you very much, Matt ! This issue won't be fixed in VW 2020 I guess (it doesn't cost anything to ask stupid question) ?
  21. Hello again @Matt Panzer, Some news from the bug report you mentioned ? Still have the issue on other files and still would like to use "Merge Objects With Same Fill".
  22. That was it ! Well done @bcd. For Objects Beyond Section Plane in Advanced Properties>Attributes, I used "Use Class". But I have now another issue... My class attributes are set to have their section style. So I need the "Use Class" option in order to lighten the line weight of objects that are beyond my section plane. This is a super nice way to have an accurate control of section line weight class by class. If I choose "Use Original" for Objects Beyond Section Plane, off course they will appear too thick. So here is my question : What is the best practice ? I find the other options not very handy to control section line weight. I know there is the option "Create Structural and Nonstructural Groups" but that get me two line weight. I need at least three different section line weight. One for structural elements. One for non-structural elements. And one for small or thin elements, like frames/glass/tiles. Plus, it removes the components hatches, if Im not doing it wrong.
  23. I really don't get what's is wrong... @markdd Please find the test file attached... I appreciate your help. TEST FILE.vwx
  • Create New...