Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'level types'.
Found 2 results
Wish We'd like support for split levels built directly into the Stories feature. Reason As it stands we currently have to use Level Types to create split level building models (and multiple buildings in one file with different elevation heights) I don't think Level Types is logically the right place to provide this capability It means that any standard Level Types you'd typically have in a model need to be multipled by the number of split levels you have, which creates unnecessarily complex lists of Level Types If we want to control top and bottom bindings by Wall Style it means multiplying all our Wall Styles Or it means we can't copy a wall across from one part of the building to another without being forced to redefine the top and bottom bindings to suit that level Possible Solution Story Groups Each group of storeys could have its own elevations defined independently of other storeys We could then define Level Types that would work across Story Groups (e.g. FFL-0 would be the same definition across split levels, and the Storey Group would control any elevation height difference between split levels.) Which means we could have Wall Styles with top and bottom bindings defined by Level Type that work across split levels Or we could copy a wall from one split level to another and not be forced to redefine the top and bottom bindings Result The result, when dealing with split levels, would mean less Level Types, less Wall Styles and less manual manipulation of top and bottom bindings
I find there's a balance to be found between the number of Levels in a model and just offsetting from existing Levels. I'm curious to know if anybody has settled on a set of rules or principles for setting up additional Levels vs using offsets? The current file I'm working, for instance, has the following levels.