Neatest way of doing electrical layouts - symbolic and literal representation of fixtures.

[line-weight]

Here's a portion of wall, firstly represented on an electrical plan, secondly represented in an interior elevation.

 

 

 

These two drawings show the same objects but with different representations.

 

For example, those wall lights are represented on the electrical layout with a 2d symbol, that's referenced in the legend of that drawing:

 

On the wall elevation they are drawn literally (ie. their actual shape, size and location). I draw them as 3d symbols and put them in their actual 3d locations. They are then labelled with a callout that's linked to note 19 in the keynote legend

 

The way I've tended to do things until now, this is a bit unsatisfactory because if I change the spec of those light fittings, I potentially have to change stuff in 4 places:

1. Edit the geometry of the 3d symbol used in the model

2. Edit the geometry of the 2d symbol that is used in the annotations of the electrical layout viewport and the electrical layout legend

3. Edit the text of the callout used for viewports that show the 3d symbol (could be interior elevations, plans, reflected ceiling plans)

4. Edit the text that is used in the legend for the electrical layout

 

And if I want to change the location of a light fitting, I have to do it in at least two places

1. Move the 3d symbol within the model

2. Move the 2d symbol within the annotations space of the electrical layout.

 

 

 

So, my question is, is there a more clever way of doing this, that streamlines the above?

 

I've considered making the light fitting symbol, for example, so that it has its 3d component and then the symbolic representation as a 2d component. But I think that is just going to get too complicated, right? For example, I might place two fittings in their actual locations in the model, and ask the electrical layout to show them as their 2d component symbols, but those symbols then are too close to each other and I'm not able to edit that for legibility.

 

[Tom W.]

I use hybrid symbols for my electrical devices.

 

They look like this in 3D:

 

Like this in hidden line section VPs:

 

And like this in Top/Plan:

 

The polylines representing the switching for the lighting is drawn separately on its on Design Layer (I prefer to do it on a Design Layer rather than in VP annotations because then I can show it in multiple VPs if I need to).

 

The symbols actually have two 2D components separated by class: the red schematic representation shown above plus a 'realistic' representation which I display in standard non-schematic plans. Here you can see the LED downlighters are represented by a dashed circle + there is a 3-gang light switch on the south side of the nib wall:

 

The 3D component of the symbols are set to insert at the correct height off the floor so the symbols can be inserted in Top/Plan very quickly + easily. The symbols incorporate 2D loci so I can insert them the correct distance from each other side by side on the wall.

 

Lastly I have a Graphic Legend set up as a key:

 

Works well for me.

 

[Tom W.]

Oh yeah + the light symbols include Light objects which I can turn on where required! e.g. in the 2/80-01 VP above.

[line-weight]

This is great! I didn't expect my question to be answered so comprehensively!

[line-weight]

49 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

The symbols actually have two 2D components separated by class: the red schematic representation shown above plus a 'realistic' representation which I display in standard non-schematic plans.

Cunning!

 

If you have two items located one above the other - say a lightswitch that's directly above a power outlet - do you have a way of dealing with this so that the red symbols don't get superimposed on each other in plan?

 

Edit - that's what's happening here, right?

 

Edited March 14 by line-weight

[Tom W.]

9 minutes ago, line-weight said:

Edit - that's what's happening here, right?

 

 

Yes this is how I do it ^: the lowest item on the wall then higher items away from the wall. It requires me to create two versions of the same symbol though with two different Top/Plan schematic representations: an 'on the wall' version + an 'away from the wall' version:

 

All other components are identical though:

 

I do a lot of elec layouts so was worth the time getting all this set up. Plus it's happened over a number of years: originally they were just 2D-only symbols for schematic layouts. The 3D geometry was downloaded off the MK website I believe. Everything is the white Logic Plus range: I haven't needed to show other styles of devices so far luckily! But if I really felt like I didn't want to do anything else in life I could create alternative 3D geometry as well (e.g. flush stainless steel front plates), separated by class,  within the same symbols. The same as I've done with my Howdens kitchen unit symbols which can either have slab fronts or shaker fronts...

 

The main thing is that VW hybrid symbols are incredibly powerful things + can take you quite close to PIOs without any scripting...

[line-weight]

1 hour ago, Tom W. said:

I could create alternative 3D geometry as well (e.g. flush stainless steel front plates), separated by class,  within the same symbols.

How would this work in a viewport context though... if you had two instances of the same symbol and you wanted one shown as the plastic variant and one as the stainless one, you wouldn't be able to control class visibilities per symbol instance, only per viewport (which would make all instances the same variant)....or would you?

[Tom W.]

6 minutes ago, line-weight said:

How would this work in a viewport context though... if you had two instances of the same symbol and you wanted one shown as the plastic variant and one as the stainless one, you wouldn't be able to control class visibilities per symbol instance, only per viewport (which would make all instances the same variant)....or would you?

 

No you're right, it would be predicated on you using the same style of wiring device throughout the model which on reflection might be of limited use... For example you'd be unlikely to use a decorative front plate behind an appliance. So maybe scratch that idea then! It works well with the Howdens units though.

[line-weight]

12 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

No you're right, it would be predicated on you using the same style of wiring device throughout the model which on reflection might be of limited use... For example you'd be unlikely to use a decorative front plate behind an appliance. So maybe scratch that idea then! It works well with the Howdens units though.

Might be a job for symbols-within-symbols though, so that you could create variants that still referenced the same geometry where it didn't differ.

[Tom W.]

19 minutes ago, line-weight said:

Might be a job for symbols-within-symbols though, so that you could create variants that still referenced the same geometry where it didn't differ.

 

If you try it out let me know how you get on.

[_James]

I've had similar thoughts to the original questions which is why I requested the following in 2019 (yikes!)

 

Things like when a light switch and socket clash in plan, where the workaround is to create a unique symbol (a good solution considering the constraints of the software), could be incorporated into a simple tool like this.

 

[line-weight]

Ok, so I'm having a go at setting up some hybrid symbols.

 

The first issue I run into .... is it possible to have a 2d component which is set to "page units" and a 3d component set to "world units"?

 

The 3d component needs to scale with the viewport scale obviously.

 

But I'd rather the 2d component didn't. That is, if I have an electrical layout at 1:20 and another one at 1:50 I don't really want the 2d symbols to be different sizes on the page. Or is that something I just have to live with, using this method?

Edited March 15 by line-weight

[line-weight]

Next issue... what if (say) it's a power outlet below a shelf?

 

A normal floor plan (in my case a horizontal section viewport, not a top/plan viewport) won't see it if the cut plane is above the shelf. So it won't display the "top" 2d component.

 

Well, I can include two 3d locii in the 3d component, one at floor level and the other at say 2m above floor level. Now VW registers the object as being 2m tall and "cut" by any cut plane within that 2m high zone. So I can put the 2d geometry in the "top (and bottom) cut" component instead of the "top" component. And this seems to work. If the socket itself is below the shelf then the 3d geometry is out of view, but if I have my HSVP set to display 2d components, that 2d component will appear drawn over the shelf, as I want it to.

 

I guess something like this would also work for ceiling lights, which are going to be above the cut plane? I'd have to include a 3d locus at floor level, within the 3d component of the symbol.

[Tom W.]

36 minutes ago, line-weight said:

Ok, so I'm having a go at setting up some hybrid symbols.

 

The first issue I run into .... is it possible to have a 2d component which is set to "page units" and a 3d component set to "world units"?

 

The 3d component needs to scale with the viewport scale obviously.

 

But I'd rather the 2d component didn't. That is, if I have an electrical layout at 1:20 and another one at 1:50 I don't really want the 2d symbols to be different sizes on the page. Or is that something I just have to live with, using this method?

 

I think it's a case of the whole symbol being either page-based or world-based: you can't mix + match within the same symbol. I personally have never found it an issue the schematic symbols scaling with the VP, in fact this is my preferred behaviour, but no harm in having the option were you to wish for it.

 

11 minutes ago, line-weight said:

Next issue... what if (say) it's a power outlet below a shelf?

 

A normal floor plan (in my case a horizontal section viewport, not a top/plan viewport) won't see it if the cut plane is above the shelf. So it won't display the "top" 2d component.

 

Well, I can include two 3d locii in the 3d component, one at floor level and the other at say 2m above floor level. Now VW registers the object as being 2m tall and "cut" by any cut plane within that 2m high zone. So I can put the 2d geometry in the "top (and bottom) cut" component instead of the "top" component. And this seems to work. If the socket itself is below the shelf then the 3d geometry is out of view, but if I have my HSVP set to display 2d components, that 2d component will appear drawn over the shelf, as I want it to.

 

I guess something like this would also work for ceiling lights, which are going to be above the cut plane? I'd have to include a 3d locus at floor level, within the 3d component of the symbol.

 

I never use HSVPs so can't really comment on this. I find Top/Plan gives me everything I need in terms of the drawings I want to generate.

[line-weight]

On re-reading @Tom W.'s description of his system, I realise that it is of course set up to work with top/plan viewports, and therefore doesn't easily translate to a horizontal section workflow.

 

Another problem I've realised:

 

As long as I get my 3d component and 2d component set up and working, I can choose per viewport which is going to display (by toggling the "display 2d components" tick-box on or off). So for wall elevations I switch that off (and the 3d object is drawn), and for electrical plans I switch it on (and the 2d symbol appears).

 

However ... on general floorplans I do want 2d components of things like doors to appear but I don't want electrical symbols to appear, so there is a problem. I guess I can get rid of the electrical symbols by class, but having "display 2d components" on means that the electrical fittings' 3d geometry doesn't get drawn ... and there are cases where I will want that to be drawn.

 

So it looks like hybrid symbols probably aren't going to work for me unfortunately.

 

 

[line-weight]

Would data tags somehow work for this?

 

I've not used them much so far.

 

My understanding is that they can only be attached to objects that are visible in a viewport - so would that mean I wouldn't be able to use them for things like those sockets hidden under shelves, or ceiling lights that are above the cut plane?

[Tom W.]

1 hour ago, line-weight said:

Would data tags somehow work for this?

 

I've not used them much so far.

 

My understanding is that they can only be attached to objects that are visible in a viewport - so would that mean I wouldn't be able to use them for things like those sockets hidden under shelves, or ceiling lights that are above the cut plane?

 

I've realised you can include both 2D + 3D geometry inside a Data Tag so it might work, but I don't know enough about HSVPs to say.

 

Data Tags don't have to be attached to other objects if you don't want them to: the association with an object is so you can return data from that object in the tag display but you can also just use tags as dumb markers if you wanted, but then they're essentially no different to symbols, unless I suppose you were using a leader...

 

 

And you don't need to see an object in a VP in order to associate a tag with that object (+ return data attached to it). This is actually a curse rather than a blessing most of the time because the tag can be picking up hundreds of other (invisible) objects + not the (visible) one you're interested in... But for something like a Space object it works very well: most of the time I don't want to actually see the Space, I just want to return data from it in a label (room name, floor area, etc).

 

I guess my position would be that you should be using Top/Plan for this because this is precisely what it's designed for. Can you not have a workflow where you use HSVPs for the bulk of your plans + Top/Plan just for the schematic ones...?

 

[line-weight]

2 hours ago, Tom W. said:

I've realised you can include both 2D + 3D geometry inside a Data Tag so it might work, but I don't know enough about HSVPs to say.

 

Data Tags don't have to be attached to other objects if you don't want them to: the association with an object is so you can return data from that object in the tag display but you can also just use tags as dumb markers if you wanted, but then they're essentially no different to symbols, unless I suppose you were using a leader...

 

 

And you don't need to see an object in a VP in order to associate a tag with that object (+ return data attached to it). This is actually a curse rather than a blessing most of the time because the tag can be picking up hundreds of other (invisible) objects + not the (visible) one you're interested in... But for something like a Space object it works very well: most of the time I don't want to actually see the Space, I just want to return data from it in a label (room name, floor area, etc).

 

I think data tags would only be useful if I could put them in the annotation space of viewport sitting at the plan location of the object they were associated with, and have them attached in such a way that if I moved the object in the model, the tag would move as well. And if i deleted the object from the model, the tag would disappear from the viewport annotations, and so on. I'm not sure if this is actually possible.

 

Otherwise, I might as well just use dumb 2d symbols in the annotation space, as I currently do.

 

2 hours ago, Tom W. said:

I guess my position would be that you should be using Top/Plan for this because this is precisely what it's designed for. Can you not have a workflow where you use HSVPs for the bulk of your plans + Top/Plan just for the schematic ones...?

 

It does look like Top/Plan currently serves this kind of purpose better.

 

However, once you're committed to an HSVP workflow, it changes how you draw the model. If I make a top/plan viewport of my model, it's a jumbled mess - on the left below is HSVP, on the right is what it looks like as top/plan. Neither has any annotation here. Of course with a lot of fiddling around it might be possible to sort the model out such that it would work in either view type, but the amount of work doing that & maintaining it would be completely disproportionate to the benefits (for me at least).

 

 

Edited March 15 by line-weight

[Tom W.]

6 hours ago, line-weight said:

However, once you're committed to an HSVP workflow, it changes how you draw the model. If I make a top/plan viewport of my model, it's a jumbled mess - on the left below is HSVP, on the right is what it looks like as top/plan. Neither has any annotation here. Of course with a lot of fiddling around it might be possible to sort the model out such that it would work in either view type, but the amount of work doing that & maintaining it would be completely disproportionate to the benefits (for me at least).

 

Yes I think I realised how impractical my suggestion was soon after posting. In that case how about a Top/Plan VP of just the electrical symbols stacked on top of a 'normal' HSVP showing everything else?

[line-weight]

2 hours ago, Tom W. said:

 

Yes I think I realised how impractical my suggestion was soon after posting. In that case how about a Top/Plan VP of just the electrical symbols stacked on top of a 'normal' HSVP showing everything else?

That in fact would deal with the "below a shelf" or "above the cut plane" issue. (how do you deal with that?) 

But it would still be the case that in any other viewports where I had 2d components switched on, the 3d geometry would disappear. I could deal with this by making a top view 2d component & controlling by class ( basically what you do) but I'd rather not have to do that if possible; it offends my principle of not drawing things manually that VW should be able to draw for me.

[Tom W.]

21 minutes ago, line-weight said:

how do you deal with that?

 

In the layout plan I posted earlier, the kitchen units + electrical devices are all on the same 'Objects' design layer but because you have Top/Plan stacking order I just make sure the elec items are on top:

 

 

In fact, they are generally always on top by default because I draw the kitchen units first then the electrical items afterwards. So in 3D the symbol is below the worktop for example but in 2D it is above.

 

The exception to this is the wall units which are on their own design layer (so I can set their height by the layer elevation + easily control their visibility) so I tend to grey that layer for the layout drawings in order to view the elec items which are underneath (you can see the greyed out wall units above). This is fine for my purposes.

 

 

 

Edited March 16 by Tom W.

[line-weight]

Yes I see. 

 

I'm wondering if I can actually do this by making non-hybrid symbols that simply contain a 3d element and a 2d element, but both within the 3d component, and then control which one is shown in any viewport by class. And perhaps use stacked viewports with one dedicated to electrical objects, as you propose.

 

This reminds me I want to make a wishlist item for more granular control over 2d components in HSVPs. If they could be controlled per object or per object type a lot of these problems would go away.

[line-weight]

I think I can make this work using:

- A 3d "container" symbol, containing a 3d symbol and a 2d symbol, both within its 3d component

- Stacked viewports for the eectrical layouts with the top one only showing the 2d symbol contents of those container symbols and nothing else (controlled by class).

 

It means that wherever I place my 3d electrical fixtures symbols in the model, the 3d parts of them will show up in all the viewports where I want them, and the 2d symbols will automatically appear in plan on the electrical layout in the correct position. It seems that I can get away with making the 2d symbols "page units" so that they appear the size I want on the drawing sheet regardless of the viewport scale.

 

Once I actually try implementing this fully in a real drawing I'll report back with any unanticipated problems (there usually are).

 

I think it might mean I can draw my connecting wires in the design layer too (rather than annotations space), although that might have limited benefits.

[Ryan Russell]

On 3/14/2024 at 7:14 AM, Tom W. said:

I use hybrid symbols for my electrical devices.

 

They look like this in 3D:

 

Like this in hidden line section VPs:

 

And like this in Top/Plan:

 

The polylines representing the switching for the lighting is drawn separately on its on Design Layer (I prefer to do it on a Design Layer rather than in VP annotations because then I can show it in multiple VPs if I need to).

 

The symbols actually have two 2D components separated by class: the red schematic representation shown above plus a 'realistic' representation which I display in standard non-schematic plans. Here you can see the LED downlighters are represented by a dashed circle + there is a 3-gang light switch on the south side of the nib wall:

 

The 3D component of the symbols are set to insert at the correct height off the floor so the symbols can be inserted in Top/Plan very quickly + easily. The symbols incorporate 2D loci so I can insert them the correct distance from each other side by side on the wall.

 

Lastly I have a Graphic Legend set up as a key:

 

Works well for me.

 

Very nice!

[line-weight]

On 3/17/2024 at 4:20 PM, line-weight said:

Once I actually try implementing this fully in a real drawing I'll report back with any unanticipated problems (there usually are).

 

So... I just completed a set of drawings where I used this method. Below, some extracts from the electrical plan, a wall elevation and a 3d view.

 

Pros:

 

It's quite satisfying that once it's all set up, I just place a lightswitch or socket as a 3d object, in the model, and it then appears in wall elevations, and also symbolically on the electrical layout. And it's nice to know that if I want to delete it or move it I only need to do that once - I just move the 3d object and it updates everywhere else.

 

Cons:

 

It takes quite a lot of careful set up and thinking about class visibilities, stacked viewports and so on. Although, it'll be much easier to set up the next time.

I'm a little concerned that I might come back to this drawing in a couple of months, needing to make some amendments under time pressure, and have completely forgotten how I set it all up.

 

The main annoyance really is what to do about 2d symbols that land on top of each other because the fittings they relate to are stacked vertically above one another in 3d.

 

It's a bit of pain to have to make variants of symbols, with offset 2d contents, each time you come across this problem.

 

I've wondered whether a solution might be to split the layout into separate lighting & power layouts - then the conflicts would be much reduced. It wouldn't be much extra drawing work, but maybe it would be annoying for contractors/electricians... not sure.

 

A few other small issues, like you can see the downlight symbols have ended up upside down with the "A" the wring way up - presumably physically rotating the 3d container object would sort that.