VW 2023 - Window PIO Issue - Insertion Points / Offset in Wall Depth

[zoomer]

In the past I was always able to control the position of my Windows precisely

with respect to my Wall Components.

There was an Offset Value in general top tab of Windows PIO settings.

 

At some point (VW 2020 or 2022 ?) there was a small change to Windows,

(Probably in preparation for coming changes for Walls and Wall Closures)

which eliminated that Offset and insertion depth control.

 

 

I thought I should retry with Wall Closures iteration 2. in VW 2023.

 

1.

I tried all kind of "Insertion" markers and settings in both Wall Styl or overwriting

in Window Style.

While it all looks perfect in Wall Closures Preview, my Windows Jamb insertion

depth in 3D geometry or 2D representation does not seem to move to where I want

or to move at all ?

 

Is someone able to bring my Window insertion position aligned ?

(outer face of Jamb = outer face of Concrete Core Component)

 

 

 

 

 

2.

I try to model my existing Sill situation.

Basically it should be simplified to have one Board of 2 cm Aluminium

on the outer side from the Jamb. Extending Wall Opening 2 cm on sides

and outer Wall Face by 4 cm at the front.

And on the inner side a 2 cm Board of Marble, extending sides and front

by 2 cm.

 

 

 

 

I think I already tried all 3 Sill Options and through all of their Settings.

So far it looks like I should just switch off Sill option in PIO and model

everything Silly manually.

 

But maybe someone is able to tweak PIOs parametric Sill Settings to

get the desired Geometry ?

 

BIM_ISSUE-WINDOW.vwx

[Christopher Graye]

4 hours ago, Tom W. said:

Do you mean in the Wall Closure dialog for a Window? And a basic door representation when the insert is a Door? What about when the insert is your own symbol? Use the generic grey rectangle in those cases?

 

The thing is, though, we don't know, in general, what kind of object is in there.  It might be a plug-in object developed by someone to represent a door, but all we would know is that it is a plug-in object - there is no way for plug-in objects to tell Vectorworks, "I am trying to represent a door".  This is another case where if we designed wall closures to interact only with our own doors and windows, we could have created a more focused experience.  But we needed to support any plug-in object.

 

4 hours ago, Tom W. said:

 

What I am still confused about is this:

 

 

@Christopher Graye this suggests (as @line-weight said) that in the case of the Wall Closure dialog for an insert, the preview shows not a generic insert but one that has the depth + origin of the insert in question. This isn't what happens so are we misinterpreting what it's saying? Or is the info incorrect?

 

That is definitely not correct.  Possibly it was added when we were trying to do this and never changed later.

 

4 hours ago, Tom W. said:

 

 

I think for a symbol you can define exactly how you want the wall to interact with the symbol by adding geometry to the Wall Closure component of the symbol (have never tried it).

 

https://app-help.vectorworks.net/2024/eng/VW2024_Guide/Symbols/Adding_a_wall_closure_component_to_a_symbol_definition.htm

 

Yes, this is where you provide the geometry the wall closure interacts with.  This is necessary because there is no way to know which parts of the 3D geometry to take into account and which to ignore when it comes to the closures.  So you just make it explicit here.  If you leave it empty I think it creates a flat plane at the symbol origin to interact with.

[Christopher Graye]

4 hours ago, Tom W. said:

Presumably the symbol needs a Wall Hole Component and probably a Wall Closure component too

 

Right - if you don't provide a wall hole object it takes the convex hull of the 3D extents of the object.  The only way to get a concave wall hole is to provide a wall hole object.

[Tom W.]

Really helpful info @Christopher Graye thanks so much for taking the time to respond. Interesting to hear some of the discussions that went on as you worked on all this - and useful for understanding the end result. Thank you.

[Christopher Graye]

4 hours ago, line-weight said:

I assume these are automatically generated when you do it within a window object.

 

I wonder what happens to wall closures if you make a custom symbol of your own, and define your own wall hole and make it non perpendicular to the wall.

 

I had better get on with some real work now though.

 

Right, plug-in objects generate their own wall hole and wall closure geometry based on what makes sense for the current parameter settings.  For symbols you have to provide these explicitly if the default behavior does not work for you.

[line-weight]

1 hour ago, Christopher Graye said:

 

Maybe, but if you are not actually putting a window in there that will be misleading.  I think I actually wanted nothing in there all, because, first of all, I didn't want any detail at all to obscure the actual closure geometry the user is editing; and secondly so everyone understood that they were editing the closure, not the inserted object.  This was a major point of confusion at first, because everyone was used to controlling component wrapping by editing the inserted object itself.  But here what you are editing is the wall or wall style or, at the insert-level, the connection between the wall and the inserted object.  So by de-emphasizing the graphics of the insert, I had hoped to make this clear.  Matt, I think, thought we needed something in there so that the options about wrapping to the insert, etc. would be more clearly understood.  This dashed gray rectangle is the compromise we came up with.  And it has gone through some changes, too - I think it was initially much darker.

 

I can see there are legitimate arguments for various options - nothing / grey square / window-like symbol.

 

In the end, my point is really just about consistency. Whichever approach is decided upon, I think it should be applied to all of the illustrative diagrams in that interface. So if the decision is that a grey rectangle is the best compromise ... I would use it in those two other diagrams too.

 

This may seem like a small thing to be fussing about, but I think that it would reduce the mental burden on users trying to work out what's going on. Once you've figured out what the dotted grey rectangle represents in one place, your work is already done when you meet it elsewhere.

 

 

Thanks anyway for the explanations.