A Master 2d Detail Library & 3d Model

[digitalcarbon]

I've been out of doing Architectural cad for some time.  the following approach is working however the location of the 2d details is the problem as I reference these by way of vps to the sheet layer then crop...everything works...but if I reorg the details on the design layer then all my sheets get messed up.

 

Maybe the details themselves need to be symbols then we just need to be able to place symbols right on the sheet layer.  this way there is a disconnect between the location of something drawn on a design layer and a sheet layer.  put another way.  we need to "cut out the middle man" (ie design layer) and have the ability to draw details as symbols (sure you can still have your library on a design layer BUT you would place the symbol detail right on the sheet layer.  

 

 

 

 

[digitalcarbon]

 

 

 

 

[digitalcarbon]

 

 

 

[digitalcarbon]

so the above approach would allow a "team" of detail makers to control the quality of all details as they have them all on various design layers but their end product for the office is 2d Detail Symbols that anyone can get and drop right onto the Sheet Layers....

 

This removes the whole "I-have-to-first-place-it-on-a-Design-Layer-then-make-a-VP-of-it-to-place-on-a-Sheet-Layer" maze. 

[digitalcarbon]

also if we could ref in symbols right to the sheet layer then we would need the Resource Manager have the ability to have folders that are more like playlists vs folders where a symbol can only be in one folder.  

[E|FA]

5 hours ago, digitalcarbon said:

if I reorg the details on the design layer then all my sheets get messed up

Unless we're both missing something, I think this is a real issue that should be resolved.  I'm actually working on detailing a project right now, and need to be cautious about how I lay everything out on the DLs so that I don't mess myself up if I have to move things later.  Other than standard assembly details, my DL detailing layout strategy is different - I arrange the details in the same way as they exist in the plans & sections.  If the deign needs to be revise (or I realize I forgot to include things) I would need to move things on the DL, which would mess up previously created VPs.

 

I really like your idea of using Symbols for each detail, and placing them directly on the SL and think this could be accomplished through a new workflow without any VW Wishlist items.  I might try it for this project.  I haven't thought about how to coordinate between the SL drawing labels, and the different Markers that reference it.  Will we need to create a dummy VP with the Drawing Label inside?  

 

My weekend plans were to create the VPs for my details and set up the Sheet Layers, so if anyone has some quick suggestions they'd be appreciated.

[digitalcarbon]

1 hour ago, E|FA said:

need to be cautious about how I lay everything out on the DLs so that I don't mess myself up if I have to move things later.

Ok, so im not alone.  this has been a thorn in my sided for years.  Back before 2006 some visiting vectorworks person mentioned how this management of 2d details was a big thing in Germany and there was this hesitation to move to 3d because there was no way to work them both together. 

 

VW this is more important than AI Visualizer as 2d detail management will always be a core work method for everything architecture, no matter how much 3d someone uses.  

 

I've been out of architecture for 10 years and now back at it and BAM! major work flow issues. 

[digitalcarbon]

 

 

 

[digitalcarbon]

 

 

[digitalcarbon]

 

 

[digitalcarbon]

 

 

[digitalcarbon]

 

 

[digitalcarbon]

[digitalcarbon]

[digitalcarbon]

 

 

 

[digitalcarbon]

 

 

[digitalcarbon]

just to say it again,  placing symbols on a sheet layer as a vp detaches the vp from a particular design layer location.  this is something we want as reorganization of details library is ever changing & you are constantly moving around tiles in the DLVPs

Edited April 2 by digitalcarbon

[EAlexander]

I just make a dedicated layer and drop all my details on there as symbols.  They appear around the drawing as needed, but I viewport them from a sperate independent layer where things never move.  Since they are symbols, I can update them anywhere and they will globally update.

 

Also - you need to make a Wishlist request thread for this and let people vote on it if you want the devs to seriously look at it.

[E|FA]

On 3/29/2024 at 10:19 AM, E|FA said:

 I might try it for this project.  I haven't thought about how to coordinate between the SL drawing labels, and the different Markers that reference it.  Will we need to create a dummy VP with the Drawing Label inside?  

Reporting back.  I gave it a shot and gave up.  Not a good thing to try when on a deadline.  I also gave up on having my details in a referenced file because I was having issues coordinating the callouts, so my file just got bigger.  Maybe there's a way to do this, but not on deadline.

[line-weight]

This will be a controversial viewpoint but why mess about with all these 2d details and remain stuck in 2d thinking when you could just draw them in 3d instead (in an intelligent way).

 

All of these details are extracted directly from the 3d model with minimal additions in annotation space.

 

I don't have to model the geometry individually for each window, because of the way I have built the window frames (they all use extrusions of 2d profiles which can be edited in such a way that I can change them all at once) and they also make full use of wall closures.

 

It's possible to set up a model in such a way that you can extract all of your details directly from it - without actually having to draw every single part of the building in full detail.

 

There may be a scale at which this approach starts to break down, but at least for the kind of small projects I do, it works better than you might think.

 

 

 

 

[Jeff Prince]

41 minutes ago, line-weight said:

why mess about with all these 2d details and remain stuck in 2d thinking when you could just draw them in 3d instead

 

Your details look great, but many of us still draw 2D details for artistic license.

Sometimes you have to graphically fudge things to communicate effectively, like weather wrap,  fasteners, lapped thin materials, etc...

Also, you can put a submittal package together using a schematic model that doesn't have everything figured out with 2D details that show how it will be done.

This saves a lot of time in the production process compared to a 100% BIM, at least with today's software.

[E|FA]

@line-weight I don't think it's controversial to set up an efficient workflow that works for your projects.  I'm jealous...   I don't think I could get it to work for me, both in terms of my capabilities in VW as well as the types of projects I do & level of details I typically draw.

[digitalcarbon]

12 hours ago, line-weight said:

why mess about with all these 2d detail

Yes I have done projects and gotten 3d details from them.  

 

The way this project is working is like this..I listen to the architect, then I make a 2d detail, then I submit and say "did I get it correct?" He say yes, then I place 2d detail in jig an brig my model up to match.

 

Also some details are standard and he wants to used them from project to project as he has a particular style.  Best to have those locked down in a 2d Detail (symbol preferred) and then disseminate out through the office.

 

 

 

 

[line-weight]

Yeah, the reality is that I to resort to 2d in annotations, for things like membranes and (sometimes but not always) thin sheet materials. I don't have a pure 3d workflow by any means. However... over the course of several projects where I've tried to reduce the 2d content each time, I've found that it's more feasible than you might expect, to try and draw "nearly everything" in 3d.

 

There are of course pros and cons but some of the pros are significant. For example I find it's also very helpful in actually working stuff out design-wise, and highlighting things that aren't going to work.

 

 

 

[line-weight]

2 minutes ago, digitalcarbon said:

I listen to the architect, then I make a 2d detail, then I submit and say "did I get it correct?"

I can see that the extent to which the person making the drawing is involved in the design (and the overall drawing strategy) is significant.

 

I have the luxury of being a one-person operation. It would be difficult to have a team of people working on my drawings, the way I currently set them up.