Jump to content

shorter

Member
  • Posts

    3,079
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by shorter

  1. it would appear to me that like windows and doors, etc, there needs to be the option to 'offset' components within a wall.

     

    You can set top and bottom offset, i.e. the z value, but not the offset in the X or Y of the component from it's resting position within a wall or from the centre line of the wall or from the control line of the wall.

  2. @KJ_KJ No new perpetual, no.  New licenses are only available via subscription (in the UK, at least), but you can generate legacy licenses when you take out a subscription.

     

    @Victoria Casey Fierro is referring to 'secondhand' licenses.  Secondhand licenses will still be perpetual and can be sold between end users, but the 'service select' contract associated to the license, if any, cannot be transferred with the license, and you cannot purchase a new service select contract for the secondhand license.

     

    Note: 'Service Select' and 'Subscription' are NOT the same thing.

  3. 2 hours ago, Tom W. said:

     

    This is interesting. I thought 'C' denoted construction drawings + tender drawings were 'T'. 

     

    That would be the most logical approach yes, but most find ISO19650 revisioning far from logical.

     

    Most practices use P, T, and C prefixes in front of their issue number, i.e. P01, T01, C01.

     

    Very clear and very logical.

     

    However, ISO19650-2:2018 UK NA 2021 only allows the use of 'P' and 'C' prefixes for revisions.

     

    It also has a status code and uses

     

    S0 (Work in Progress)

    S1 to S5 (Shared, non-contractual)

    and

    A1 to An, where n is the stage of the project.  'A' denotes the published 'Contractual' or  'Authorised' issue.

     

    So not only do you have to note the revision, but also it's purpose or status, so a drawing for coordination is status 'S1', revision 'P01', for example, but could be issued the next day as S0, revision P02.01, to denote a WIP drawing, working toward P02.

     

    The status 'B' used to be in the mix, but was deprecated a couple of years ago, if I recall.

     

    Refer to ISO19650-2:2018 UK NA 2021 Section NA.4.2, and table NA.2 for status codes and NA.4.3

     

    It's a mixture of the two that give the stage to which the drawing is related.

     

    Status A5 would be a drawing authorised for use at stage 5, and this effectively replaces what many do when they put 'C' in front of the 'construction' issue.

     

    I was going to give a talk on all this and how to set up your own file naming protocols, if anyone is interested.

     

    I am not sure the above is what @Blinkglitter needs, tbh, unless working on a BIM project but by then the chances are these issues will have been written into the BEP.

    • Like 3
  4. ISO19650 has a system of revisioning/issuing that involves interim revision between formal issues.

     

    It works on the basis of the issue you are working towards.

     

    It manifests as

     

    P01.01

     

    where P01 is the revision you are working towards, and 01 is the interim issue, which could work in your particular case.

     

    You could therefore use a mixture of 'Issue' and 'Revision' in VW, where perhaps the formal Issue is P01, and the revision is A, B, C for internal review, e.g.

     

    P01A, P01B, etc

     

    All this of course assumes you are not being asked to issue documents in accordance with ISO19650.

     

    This diagram explains the concept...

     

    Screenshot2024-03-23at09_54_59.thumb.png.9af77e2a04f2f1f3b3cde25d3d6090cf.png

     

    Screenshot2024-03-23at09_57_39.thumb.png.f3b8c1103d9e88f3fbb0a543790ac92b.png

     

    The 'P' standards for Preliminary or Work in Progress.

     

    Under ISO19650 if you see an issue/revision 'C01' the  'C' denotes 'Contractual' e.g. Issued for Tender.

     

     

    • Like 4
  5. On 3/15/2024 at 6:19 PM, Laura Stone said:

    Hi Sorry, I think I confused things.  I haven't been given an IFC file, only a native Revit file.  I am pretty certain the Revit file was not georeferenced but I had also been given a 2D dwg that was aligned north.  So I imported the Revit file, picked up everything and aligned it with some of the 2D geometry so it was aligned north and then adjusted the user origin so that the internal origin matched the Revit internal/survey origins (both in the same place).  After that I enabled the georeferencing and entered the co-ords for the OS datum and that was spot on for the imagery, so I'm pretty sure right.  BIM meeting on Monday so no doubt I'll find out if my Revit and IFC exports matched up.

     

    A native revit file will not be georeferenced when opened in VW.  The georeferencing settings in revit are an applied coordinate system not a native one.  Always ask for IFC.

    • Confused 1
  6. I should also add that we have identified a bug in Revit where the location of the internal origin will move if the rotation angle is set AFTER the location of the project base point.  Creates havoc when trying to coordinate IFCs.

  7. When you say 'geo-referencing' you aren't using the document setting, are you?

     

    You need to do some coordination testing and this all depends on what they have sent you as a base.  Have they issued an IFC in OPS coordinates or not, and is it rotated or not.

     

    Based on the screenshot (and I assume that coordinate is rounded not precise) you need to leave geo-referencing well alone, and simply set the 'user origin' to the coordinate given.

     

    Test 1

     

    Try opening a new file, and test an import of their IFC and reference the resulting VW file to your model.  Also, check their IFC has been issued correctly by opening it in BIM Collab or SOlibri first, and checking the 'location' of the project.  If the location X and Y values are not as per the screenshot, then they have not exported it correctly.

     

    1 Set the user origin as follows (assuming I have read the coordinate correctly)

     

    https://www.dropbox.com/t/kZPVVbNt47Vv5v8o

     

    2 Then import the IFC with these settings:

     

    Screenshot2024-03-11at13_37_07.png.92ca7dd9abd6babe18ada4fb4b1d9f34.png

     

    3 Check the IFC, delete any unwanted data, rename classes and layers with the author code otherwise they may conflict and then reference it to your model, which if it is set up correctly should align the IFC to the internal origin in your model (use layer referencing and 'ignore source user origin'.

     

    If the IFC has been issued from 'shared coordinates' all should be well.

     

    The rotation angle is a red herring.  You will need to use rotate view to align your model to theirs if they send it from shared coordinates.

     

    If they have sent you an IFC from 'internal cooordinates' then the process is a bit easier.

     

    Test 2

     

    Import the IFC into a fresh file, without setting the user origin.  The origin in the IFC and orientation of the model should be as per the screenshot.

     

    If you or the architect need any assistance, get in touch offlist.  The coordinate and rotation angle in the screenshot suggest they may need assistance.

     

     

  8. 1 hour ago, Laura Stone said:

    Bit of a bump here but do you know which of Revit's origins is the one that needs to align?  As far as I know there is a project base point, a survey point and an internal origin and they may not be aligned with each other.

     

    It is good practice to align all three at the start of the project.  The critical point is the internal origin.  Ideally this would be aligned to the PBP and Survey Point.  If the Revit users want to change the location of the PBP after, it will have no impact on coordination as the PBP is peculiar to revit.

     

    However, make sure the PBP does not set a faux level unless agreed.

     

    Models must be built at the same level relative to the internal origin and a level should not be applied to the PBP in Revit unless agreed (e.g. when the buulding is up a mountain, you establish a common datum and agree that ground floor FFL = 0m in the model = 1000m AOD.

     

    It is possible to cheat and issue a model that counteracts the effects of a faux level applied at the PBP if one is applied without agreement but it's not ideal.

     

    We often end up creating multiple models to issue to different consultants because they do not know where their origin is and it's too late to do anything about it.

    • Like 1
  9. there is a process called 'proof of concept' that must be carried out before any meaningful exchange of data, even in 2D.

     

    Write the following (or similar) into the project BEP...

     

    "Proof of Concept stage (aka Coordination Testing Stage)

     

    As good practice, ensure these procedures are followed, and that a coordination test is carried out before any modelling commences:

     

    1.    All models shall be built from fresh template files.
    2.    Do not use ‘Save as’ to create a new model.
    3.    Do not use models that have been upgraded from older software versions.  This is to avoid potential corruption due to the upgrade process or from previous modelling processes and configurations.
    4.    Following the setting up of the discipline model, either via incorporation of the coordinating DWG, RVT or IFC file issued by the Architect, test models shall be shared according to the procedures and processes outlined in this BEP and the accompanying documentation.
    5.    Do not commence any modelling until a coordination test has been carried out and signed off by the Architect and Project BIM Manager. The test will be successful when models from all consultants have been shown to align without editing to Internal Origins and Shared (i.e. Site) XY Coordinates, and thus they can be linked, referenced, or imported by Internal Origin as well as Shared Coordinates."

    • Like 3
  10. You would struggle is you are building a model.  Creating an Axo is one of those peculiarly difficult things to do from a 3D model.

     

    You can get close but it is not technically an 'axo' by using the rotate 3D view command, but otherwise the only standard views available are isometric, which TBH, I always found far more appealing than axos which we always found clunky in comparison.  Perhaps that's because my generation were more Peter Wilson, than Jim Stirling.

     

    But @Jeff Prince is spot on! Tough assignment!

  11. Currently we can save DWG export settings; a great tool and a massive time saver.

     

    However, sometimes, the export settings very depending on the view or file we are exporting from, and therefore it would make sense for the settings to be file specific, like ifc export settings.

     

    Also, while we can save DWG export settings they need to be distributed to staff since they do not get picked up via the workgroup folder settings.  This can be quite a challenge to maintain in a large office (or in my case many large offices).

    • Like 1
  12. Who else thinks that the default storey levels should update all storeys when changed?

     

    If we set our default 'Structural Slab Level' to -100mm, for example, at the start of the project and then change our mind when the floor buildup becomes a bit more resolved, it would seem logical that the 'default' structural slab storey level should control all instances of that storey level in all storeys of the building, no?

     

    It seems to me that when we set storey levels we need a button like in styles, to make this 'styled' or 'instance', i.e. default or user editable.

    • Like 1
  13. We are in the process of moving 100s of projects from one server to another so it would be desirable at the moment because without it we have hours of work reattaching references.

     

    Relative referencing is inflexible, admittedly, but it is very reliable and great when archiving or moving a project.

     

    Tip: When planning such an undertaking (moving data from one server to another) make sure everything is discussed, agreed and most importantly, tested with your IT support, before moving the data.

     

    We have done this many times over the last 20 years or so, and there are options, but ensuring all referencing is relative path from the outset would alleviate any long term problem.  You simply cannot rely on staff to remember to do it.

  14. I wish, like Microstation, that we could configure Vectorworks to always reference with relative path.

     

    It is currently down to user selection, and with all due respect to busy architects and designers everywhere, you have better things on your mind than to remember to click 'Relative Path; when you reference two files together.

    • Like 1
  15. 17 hours ago, zoomer said:

    Any Elements Z value in OIP should have a dropdown to select

    if it applies to its Layer height or as an offset to a Story Level (?)

     

    (At least to those Story Levels that relate to its Layer ....

    when bound to a Story that contains Levels ?)

     

    Oh wait, then when every Element belongs to a Story and Level ....

    why do we still need Layers ?

     

    It gets complicated for me here.

     

     

    At least all PIOs should have a general Level binding

    (As most do, like Walls or Stairs, but so far e.g. Doors and Windows don't)

    AND PIOs should have Component bindings.

    (As most do, like Walls or Stairs)

    E.g. Windows should derive their overall height from Sill and top Level.

     

    Standard non-PIO Elements or Symbols may only need a general overall Level binding.

    Or do we need e.g. Extrudes defined by top and bottom Levels (?)

     

     

     

     

    I am not sure if a coping could/should be already part of a Wall Style

    (Like a control over a Wall End appearance when not connected ?

    controlled by Wall Closure Settings ??)

     

    The problem we have is that we get involved in projects that require non-standard details, and tends to mean we cannot use standard PIOs.  It is why we never use the stair tool, for example.  Even doors have to be placed inside symbols to provide the required 2D representation at the jambs, etc, or when combined with windows or none standard openings.

     

    Other than the joy of 'thinking through modelling' this way, we get exactly what we want.

     

    The coping options would need to be far greater than the frankly embarrassing array of window cill options currently available.

    • Like 2
  16. A couple of tests you can do.

     

    Make sure the titlesheet border does not contain any text fields defined by text styles, including by class.

     

    We found this was one of the main reasons the sheet moved in 2022.

     

    If you are using the 'Architect.sta' templates by Vectorworks, stop and create your own templates.

     

    We found that when files are linked via referencing, 'old' invisible VW titlesheet record formats were conflicting with our new titlesheet library with it's ISO19650 compliant fields, and the titlesheet would move, or data would be deleted.

     

    And finally, right click on sheet border style, and locate in resource manager.  Right-click and check plugin options.  Check the default class used.

  17. Despite some inherent limitations in the way storeys and storey levels work, it would be really useful to be able to associate any object to a storey level, not just symbols or certain PIOs.

     

    For example, rather than add an edge beam as an extrusion or extrude along path to a slab, the extrusion could exist separately but be associated to the same 'SSL' storey level as the slab itself.

     

    Of course, if objects could 'see' storey levels outside a 'container' like a solid addition or subtraction, or symbol this would be the sugary white substance on the proverbial flour and egg based confection.

  18. 9 hours ago, frv said:

    Thanks Zoomer, for the tip checking out German forums.

    @shorter, maybe a workflow issue but only someone with good Archicad knowledge would know. I have 35 years experience with VW and at the office there are some who have a workflow going that is hard to beat but still frustrating. Too many BIM related maintenance and work-arounds in the workflow compared to Revit (which we work with as well) and Archicad ( as we assume) .

     

    I am talking about the workflow in vectorworks.

×
×
  • Create New...