Structural Member

[Thomas Wagensommerer]

Is there a way to correctly display diagonal structural members in floor/plan view? (without workarounds)

[Gadzooks]

Specify bottom cover - no thickness entered

 

This will give you a second set of lines if thats what you're after

Edited September 26, 2023 by Gadzooks

[Thomas Wagensommerer]

This is how it should look.

[Gadzooks]

Sorry - I thought you were wanting to display rotation on the rafter elements by way of extra lines rather than your cross-cut on the beam. You’re quite right though - that should be drawn at the level specified. 

Boffins 0 - Professions 1. 

[line-weight]

If you use a horizontal section instead of top/plan it will section correctly (although it won't draw the X on the timber section for you).

 

I realise this is not much help if you're committed to the top/plan workflow.

[Tom W.]

If you are committed to Top/Plan one option would be to Cmd-K the Structural Members then convert the whole assembly to an Auto-Hybrid. I realise this is no good if you want the objects to remain as Structural Members but it would give you a high degree of control over how the assembly looked in Top/Plan: at the cut plane, below the cut plane + above the cut plane.

[Thomas Wagensommerer]

19 minutes ago, line-weight said:

If you use a horizontal section instead of top/plan it will section correctly (although it won't draw the X on the timber section for you).

 

I realise this is not much help if you're committed to the top/plan workflow.

 

LineWeight, thank you for your reply.

 

OK, I don't need the X on the timber section.

 

Those are my real honest questions: Why are there all those complicated settings in the structural member tool, if we need a horizontal section anyway? What ist the "top/plan workflow" and is there a better workflow? Why is top/plan different from a horizontal section?

 

 

[Thomas Wagensommerer]

7 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

If you are committed to Top/Plan one option would be to Cmd-K the Structural Members then convert the whole assembly to an Auto-Hybrid. I realise this is no good if you want the objects to remain as Structural Members but it would give you a high degree of control over how the assembly looked in Top/Plan: at the cut plane, below the cut plane + above the cut plane.

 

TomW, thank you for your reply.

 

Would you agree, that the structural member tool is broken, if it can't be used correctly without being converted to to an Auto-Hybrid?

 

And why does ist sound dubious, if someone is committed to Top/Plan? 😉

 

[line-weight]

8 minutes ago, Thomas Wagensommerer said:

 

LineWeight, thank you for your reply.

 

OK, I don't need the X on the timber section.

 

Those are my real honest questions: Why are there all those complicated settings in the structural member tool, if we need a horizontal section anyway? What ist the "top/plan workflow" and is there a better workflow? Why is top/plan different from a horizontal section?

 

 

 

Very briefly:

 

VW currently attempts to maintain two different approaches to creating floorplans.

 

The traditional approach is to make a "top/plan" viewport for floorplans. A top/plan view is not a true section, more like a graphical layering of 2d symbols.

 

A more recently developed approach is to use a "horizontal section viewport" instead. This is the approach I now use, because it suits me best for the kinds of work I do and I can't be bothered with what I regard as fiddly workarounds to make things section properly in plan view (the subject of this thread being a perfect example). It is not really promoted much by VW, so you kind of have to discover it for yourself. This has been discussed in bits & pieces over multiple threads in the past few years. Most recently here:

 

https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/67207-stair-visibility-issue-on-upper-layer-floor-plan-viewport-hsvp/page/2/

 

I'd suggest reading through that thread to get an idea of what the difference is.

 

 

 

[line-weight]

2 minutes ago, Thomas Wagensommerer said:

 

Would you agree, that the structural member tool is broken, if it can't be used correctly without being converted to to an Auto-Hybrid?

 

 

In my opinion: the whole top/plan approach is broken, as soon as you start trying to do anything a bit complicated or want to portray 3d geometry beyond a certain level of detail.

[Tom W.]

7 minutes ago, Thomas Wagensommerer said:

 

TomW, thank you for your reply.

 

Would you agree, that the structural member tool is broken, if it can't be used correctly without being converted to to an Auto-Hybrid?

 

And why does ist sound dubious, if someone is committed to Top/Plan? 😉

 

 

Top/Plan is great I love it! I don't think there's anything dubious about it!

 

I don't use Structural Members all that often + but when I have I have never had any issues with their representation in Top/Plan but then I've never needed to cut through one at an angle. In circumstances like that I'm generally quite happy converting the object into an Auto-Hybrid or a hybrid symbol to get the Top/Plan representation I want. I think the hybrid workflow gives you an enormous amount of control over how things look in plan.

[line-weight]

Generally though, the whole point of structural members is that they are parametric objects that can remain editable, adjustable, schedule-able and so on. And once you cmd-K them that's all gone. Or can they survive inside a hybrid symbol somehow?

[Tom W.]

2 minutes ago, line-weight said:

Generally though, the whole point of structural members is that they are parametric objects that can remain editable, adjustable, schedule-able and so on. And once you cmd-K them that's all gone. Or can they survive inside a hybrid symbol somehow?

 

I agree with you + no I don't think there's a way to keep them as Structural Members + somehow overwrite the inherent hybrid geometry they already have. I think you're right that if you have a complex Structural Member assembly + need to retain them as Structural Members AND want to cut a section through the middle of them then yes you are going to need to use a Horizontal Section Viewport - which is why it's good it exists as an option! But I'm sure going down that route would bring it's own set of problems so I guess it's a matter of pursuing the route you're most comfortable with.