Process…

[E|FA]

I'm sure everyone has different workflows and needs, but I wouldn't want to complicate the existing Wall tool by adding framing members.  I'm an architect who does mostly single family wood framed residences in the US, and I have no need to show every stud in my drawings.  For me, the floor plans are diagrams that show the general type of wall without telling the contractor how to frame it.  If there are specific alignments necessary, I handle them in the details and/or structural drawings.  If I have exposed joists, I model them in 3D for the sections to work out.  

 

 I understand that others may want/need to show the full framing package, so my preference would be that this remain a separate tool.  The Wall tool is too complex already, having to deal with component settings, wall peaks, component wrapping, etc.  

[line-weight]

It might be different in other places but in the UK it's the convention (at least, the convention I learned) to draw stud walls with the studs drawn in GA floor plans which might be at 1:50 (when I'd say you'd always draw individual studs) or 1:100 (I think you still would).

 

In these cases they aren't trying to tell the contractor exactly where the studs should be, it's more a visual indication that this is as timber (or metal) framed wall rather than a solid one.

 

When I was still drawing in 2d this tended to involve some tedious duplicating of symbols along the relevant walls, and frustratingly that remains the case drawing in 3d. In fact recently I've started not to bother, quite often, which is a compromise solution - it saves some drawing time but leaves me a little dissatisfied with the quality of the drawing.

 

In fact in 3d it's worse than in 2d because you have to draw in those studs in the annotation space of the GA plan, which means that if you later make a new viewport say at 1:20 (when I'd definitely prefer to draw the individual studs) they aren't there already drawn - you have to draw or copy-paste them into the annotation space of that viewport. And then if you change the wall you have to go and edit annotations in multiple viewports.

 

This is why, even if it was only a 2d representation that got drawn automatically, it would save quite a lot of drawing time.

 

This is in the same category as the Xs in rough timber sections not being drawn automatically...things that you have to resort to drawing in annotation space that surely the computer should be able to do for me, in the 3rd decade of the 21st century.

[Matt Panzer]

2 hours ago, E|FA said:

I'm sure everyone has different workflows and needs, but I wouldn't want to complicate the existing Wall tool by adding framing members.  I'm an architect who does mostly single family wood framed residences in the US, and I have no need to show every stud in my drawings.  For me, the floor plans are diagrams that show the general type of wall without telling the contractor how to frame it.  If there are specific alignments necessary, I handle them in the details and/or structural drawings.  If I have exposed joists, I model them in 3D for the sections to work out.  

 

 I understand that others may want/need to show the full framing package, so my preference would be that this remain a separate tool.  The Wall tool is too complex already, having to deal with component settings, wall peaks, component wrapping, etc.  

 

Not that we’re actively researching this but, if we did add it to the wall, it would most certainly be an option you could choose to ignore.

[Ryan Russell]

@Matt Panzer - Why is the FRAMING process not more important for Vectorworks?

 

Especially when you consider current IRC requirements for braced wall panel design, this seems to be a much-needed feature from the VW team. Architects & Home Builders are now being required to understand how the framing works on the house not just for design sake, but also that of required calculations, takeoffs, and load analysis (both seismic and wind load paths).

 

Others have chimed in that they do not want the WALL TOOL to be modified as it may affect their workflow, and I think that makes sense to not tie this to the WALL TOOL.

 

Furthermore, others have posted that the PROCESS I am seeking is the job of an Engineer. I like to be knowledgable and in control of my projects, and would hope the Vectorworks team can see value in improving the software to assist those in the field I have said earlier...  I welcome a conversation with the programming team that could assist in developing methods or processes on how best to move forward with the development of a functional solution. It would be really nice to replicate the entire process for how Residential Construction happens in the field. And when you consider that the LOAD PATHS are transferred from the Roof System, down through the Walls, then into the Foundation it makes the FRAMING absolutely crucial to have correct when constructing a Digital Twin.

 

So perhaps we just need another tool to be developed that can be tied to the WALL TOOL and update as changes are made to the WALL TOOL. 

 

Other things that would be nice to have...

- inclusion  of braced wall methods

- inclusion of options for insulation methods

- ability to shift from 16" to 24" on center framing

- ability to select individual corner styles for common framing methods, and have multiple methods in single system

- insertion options for studs (sizing (2x4), (2x6), (2x8), materials (dimensional lumber, LSL studs))

- implementation similar to 2 point click for Cabinet Plug-in for poly line insertion along FOUNDATION perimeter

- inclusion of options for mud sill, untreated plate, treated plate

- compliance with minimum of IRC 2018 code

 

Future improvements...

- APA Wood Calculator integration

- Material takeoff

- IRC enhancements & required changes to Braced Wall Panel design (Chapter 6) for more current iterations of code (2021, 2024).

- Potentially integrate Roof, Truss, Ceiling, and Floor into this tool for more accurate modeling capabilities

 

 

[E|FA]

11 minutes ago, Ryan Russell said:

it makes the FRAMING absolutely crucial to have correct when constructing a Digital Twin

@Ryan Russell I support your recommendations for potential VW features as I'm sure they'd be helpful to you and others.  For me, these items would be relatively low on the priority list, especially the structural calculations and code compliance for which I would not rely on any software package.  From a professional practice standpoint, I would still need a structural engineer and to do my own code review for nonstructural elements.  I also do not expect nor represent my drawings to be a "Digital Twin" of the constructed product, even though I believe my drawing sets are more detailed than many/most architects in my area.  Unless I have specific detail requirements, I do not want to direct a contractor on the stud layouts and I can't think of many contractors whose framing crews would follow them in the field if I did.  

 

The part of your suggestions that I would find most useful are in your "nice to have" list, with the Wall tool upgraded to the point that it could generate plates, corners, etc on plans/sections/detail viewports.  I think your list captures the items that we'd want to control.  The only other item I can think of at the moment is fireblocking.

 

 

[Jeff Prince]

@Ryan Russell just curious, what design software does all of that?

 

I ask because none of my architect clients go to that level of detail.  They design the building and specify the systems either per building code or by structural engineer.  It seems there is a lot of low hanging fruit that architects would rather have… stacked wall components, better roofs, better parametric assemblies of systems, etc.

[Matt Panzer]

16 hours ago, Ryan Russell said:

@Matt Panzer - Why is the FRAMING process not more important for Vectorworks?

 

 

In a nutshell, Vectorworks is used in many regions around the globe - each having different needs.  As you can already see in this thread, many users put different wishes higher on their priority list.  We're always looking at these many needs and need to make hard decisions to prioritized them.  While I agree are framing tools are in need of considerable improvements (and it is important to us), there are other many other areas that need improvements as well.  I realize it can be frustrating to not see a feature you've wished for not get addressed for a long time (I was a VW user for over 23 years) but there's only so much that can be done with the resources we have.

[Ryan Russell]

@Matt Panzer

 

I think that not incorporating what's necessary for construction of Single Family Residential Dwellings is a huge miss.

 

And I find it amusing that Architects continually pass the responsibility onto someone else!

For those who hold a professional license, they most certainly have missed the directive of "public safety".

 

Knowing all the details of any project is paramount, and I think that VW should reflect the same.

[Ryan Russell]

http://design.medeek.com/resources/resources.html

 

Look at all the tools developed here for Sketch-up by Nathan who is a FRAME CARPENTER.

 

PLUG-IN Listing:

TRUSS Tool

TRUSS Design Tool

WALL Tool

FOUNDATION Tool

FLOOR Tool

ELECTRICAL Calc

SEISMIC Design Tool

ASCE Wind Design Tool

SNOW Load Calc

SLIDING SNOW Load Calc

WIND LOAD Calc (Envelope)

WIND LOAD Calc (Directional)

WIND LOAD Calc (Components & Claddingl)

STUD WALL Calc

NAIL Calc

DIAPHRAGM & SHEATHING Calc

PORTAL FRAME Calc

SQUARE FOOTAGE Calc

STEM Calc

DECK Calc

FENCE Calc

SIGN Calc

GAMBREL ROOF Calc

 

Again, I will restate and emphasize that the aforementioned would be excellent additions that will greatly serve and compliment your existing user base. I know that some of the existing tools already cover some of the features listed above, but without knowing all of above, VW does a tremendous disservice to those in Residential Construction field. For Architects, I'd imagine their gripes would reside elsewhere (WALL TOOL, WINDOW & DOOR INSERTION, LAYERS/ TEXTURES, COLUMNS, ROOFS), and this is the Pandora's box that opened itself the moment that VW decided it would become a multi-focused application (SPOTLIGHT / LANDMARK / ARCHITECT/ DESIGN SUITE) beyond the isolated scope of Architecture, which I seem to recall was the initial reason Richard Diehl wrote the application back when it was MiniCAD in the 80's.

 

Frustrated, I am... yes. Vectorworks is still without a doubt the best functional CAD/BIM application for the Mac desktop. I just desire to improve it, and it sounds like I may have to go at this alone. Also, its like someone once told me... "you never want to be a Pioneer, they are the first ones to get shot in the back by Indians!"    

 

[Jeff Prince]

@Ryan Russell still just curious, what design software does all of that?

 

Perhaps you have identified a pathway to riches… you could develop some plug-ins for vectorworks for the construction market.

[Tom W.]

10 hours ago, Ryan Russell said:

@Matt Panzer

 

I think that not incorporating what's necessary for construction of Single Family Residential Dwellings is a huge miss.

 

And I find it amusing that Architects continually pass the responsibility onto someone else!

For those who hold a professional license, they most certainly have missed the directive of "public safety".

 

Knowing all the details of any project is paramount, and I think that VW should reflect the same.

 

10 hours ago, Ryan Russell said:

http://design.medeek.com/resources/resources.html

 

Look at all the tools developed here for Sketch-up by Nathan who is a FRAME CARPENTER.

 

PLUG-IN Listing:

TRUSS Tool

TRUSS Design Tool

WALL Tool

FOUNDATION Tool

FLOOR Tool

ELECTRICAL Calc

SEISMIC Design Tool

ASCE Wind Design Tool

SNOW Load Calc

SLIDING SNOW Load Calc

WIND LOAD Calc (Envelope)

WIND LOAD Calc (Directional)

WIND LOAD Calc (Components & Claddingl)

STUD WALL Calc

NAIL Calc

DIAPHRAGM & SHEATHING Calc

PORTAL FRAME Calc

SQUARE FOOTAGE Calc

STEM Calc

DECK Calc

FENCE Calc

SIGN Calc

GAMBREL ROOF Calc

 

Again, I will restate and emphasize that the aforementioned would be excellent additions that will greatly serve and compliment your existing user base. I know that some of the existing tools already cover some of the features listed above, but without knowing all of above, VW does a tremendous disservice to those in Residential Construction field. For Architects, I'd imagine their gripes would reside elsewhere (WALL TOOL, WINDOW & DOOR INSERTION, LAYERS/ TEXTURES, COLUMNS, ROOFS), and this is the Pandora's box that opened itself the moment that VW decided it would become a multi-focused application (SPOTLIGHT / LANDMARK / ARCHITECT/ DESIGN SUITE) beyond the isolated scope of Architecture, which I seem to recall was the initial reason Richard Diehl wrote the application back when it was MiniCAD in the 80's.

 

Frustrated, I am... yes. Vectorworks is still without a doubt the best functional CAD/BIM application for the Mac desktop. I just desire to improve it, and it sounds like I may have to go at this alone. Also, its like someone once told me... "you never want to be a Pioneer, they are the first ones to get shot in the back by Indians!"    

 

 

I kind of feel this is a bit like arguing that Interiorcad should be included as standard with VW: it's a great piece of software + I personally would be very happy to see it be a permanent + integral part of VW but how many users would get the benefit + how many would appreciate the resultant doubling (or near enough) of the license fee...? Similarly I would be happy to have access to all the timber framing features you're discussing but think it's unrealistic to expect VW to add it to the Wall Tool. It would be better developed as a separate add-on that people who need/want it could purchase. But I imagine there is already dedicated timber framing software out there that people who need it are using + is there the market to develop a brand new program that specifically integrates with VW...?

[line-weight]

I was curious and watched the video below.

 

Interesting to see where the limitations arise, many of which are quite similar to those found in VW.

 

It certainly looks very impressive given that it seems to have been developed by one person. But it has a quite narrow focus in reality - it can deal with one particular type of wall construction, used in one rather generic type of architecture. Perhaps in the future it will be developed to be easier to use for more non-standard designs, of course.

 

It's also clear that it's best suited for drawing up an already settled design. It looks like it would be very cumbersome as a design development tool.

 

The main thing I wondered about was how it actually integrates with structural calculations. As far as I can see it doesn't, but there seems to be a plan to add this. It would be interesting to see how that develops, because I assume that if you are going to actually build a structural model, then there are various important ways in which the model must truly reflect reality. The various problems he solves in the video with workarounds would presumably become much bigger issues if you want to generate a model that's valid for structural analysis. And they would become more and more significant the less standard the design.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ross Harris]

There's so much missing or refined that needs to be prioritised I feel. As Matt alluded to VW being a global software, a framing tool risks being regionalised to be useful in a code compliance manner - a bracing tool (as an example) would be useless for us here at the bottom of the world if developed for a 'predominant market'. Trusses here can only be engineer designed or provided by specialist software then made by licensed fabricators. All timber framed houses and truss fabrication here are designed (post council approval) by detailers using predominantly Mitek Sapphire in the pre-nail factories, loaded on a truck and delivered to site. Designers here only need to cover the bigger picture stuff with specific detailing to get building consents. Trusses can have complicated loading paths to foundations and are best left to specialist software and engineers. 

We also have steel framing gaining in popularity - which is again detailed for prefabrication in specialist software like framecad that talks directly to the machinery rolling the frames.

To be able to cover all the legislative requirements, loading and structural codes around the world and being able to certify compliance would be very diffcult or next to impossibe for software like vectorworks. I can almost guarantee that the sketch up plugins are more for looks or will pump out a design that meets code in a specific locale. If vectorworks were to focus development on a specific region would likely alienate others - especially if this developmet were to raise the cost.

My vote is to leave this to specialist software. We just need to get everyone here interchanging with ifc..

Edited April 19 by Ross Harris

[Ryan Russell]

@Ross Harris

I understand what you are saying, but at the end of the day are you still not held to IRC (International Residential Code) compliance?

 

What I am merely suggesting is some sort of plug-in that would enable the understanding/ knowledge of taking manufacturer specifications, alongside that of the Engineer's recommendations, and adding those values/data into the working model for having the ability to create LOAD CALCs. 

 

[rDesign]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Russell said:

I understand what you are saying, but at the end of the day are you still not held to IRC (International Residential Code) compliance?

I believe that countries other than the U.S. (and it’s territories) do not use the IBC (or IRC), at least according to the ICC.
ICC Overview of the International Building Code
 

So, no there is not one ‘international’ building code — despite the name.

[Ross Harris]

3 hours ago, rDesign said:

So, no there is not one ‘international’ building code — despite the name.

Correct. We have our own and unique building act, building code and regulatory system. We share some standards with Australia, but that's it. Our code clauses quite often modify these standards to make them relevant to our conditions. Sapphire has been regionalised so it outputs loading code compliance to AS/NZS1170, Framecad was developed here to provide steel framing to our standards - the NASH steel framing manual is basically a steel frame version of our standard for timber framed buildings - NZS3604:2011. The date is pertinent as it was revised after the Canterbury earthquakes.

 

In terms of outputting loading codes; NZS3604 is basically a dummies guide to building a house that automatically complies with AS/NZS1170. I.e. floor joist is this long, has a roof load = use this size timber at this spacing. Buildings out of scope with this standard is when engineering is needed. The calcs must be signed off by a chartered professional engineer - this is enshrined in legislation through the building act an the chartered professional engineers act. This is just our rules in a little country at the bottom of the world. I can only image that's it's just as unique and complex in other countries or even between states.

Edited April 19 by Ross Harris

[line-weight]

Same here in the UK, we certainly don't use that "International" building code nor had I ever heard of it prior to reading it on this thread. We have building regulations and they aren't even the same in all parts of the UK - Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own versions.

The building regulations refer quite a lot to British Standards, some of which are partly harmonised with european (EU) standards but not all of them are and some may diverge again, now that the UK is no longer part of the EU.

 

Additionally, timber frame is not really the standard method of building residential housing in the same way it seems to be in North America. It's changing a bit of perhaps but masonry cavity walls are traditionally the "standard" approach. And where we do use timber it's often as the inner structural leaf of a cavity wall. That has implications for what happens to timber frame at details such as eaves, which will be different from what happens in North American construction. I wonder if using that sketchup plugin for a standard UK design would reveal additional limitations.

[Tom W.]

I'd be happy with just an updated/improved Wall Framer command or even better, a separate 'Timber Frame' Wall type which you could insert Doors/Windows into. Even the specialist timber frame fabricators I use don't do their own structural calcs: they employ a structural engineer. I am quite happy modifying my timber framing once I've had input from my structural engineer in the same way that I would for everything else: foundations, slabs, steelwork, etc.

[cberg]

On 4/12/2024 at 1:06 PM, line-weight said:

Unfortunately VW currently can't even automatically draw the "X" in sections through rough timber members at the moment.

 

 

It drives me absolutely crazy that VW can't even draw an "X" in rough timber sections.  This can't be a difficult feature to add to the framing member object. 

While we are at it, it is also mind-boggling that the wall framer command resorts to making geometry as 3D Solids instead of something parametric with top and bottom offset controls. 

 

Conceptually, framing as an overlay to the wall tool (which can be manipulated separately as needs arise but could be updated/ linked) makes a little more sense than trying to keep everything contained in the wall. 

 

To incrementally achieve fully framed walls, VW needs to develop a tool (or set of tools) that accomplishes framing.  VW has a horizontal framing member but no vertical framing counterpart, which is inexplicable and tragic.  The roadmap mentions "openings" as a new tool that will be developed, but the description is vague.  Conceptually, openings could be a critical element in creating a framing vocabulary.  (Horizontal members, Vertical Studs/Posts + Openings -- Think of the infinite BIM possibilities...)

 

The mullion tool  (which few people probably use) could form the basis for a "to be developed" Stud/Post Tool.  The Stud/Post Tool should have a few profile shape options, like LG Metal Studs and 2 x sizes.  There should be options for some connections and data regarding fasteners.  Most importantly, the tool could integrate top/bottom offsets.

 

Once developed, there should be a way to link the horizontal and vertical framing elements, like in the structural member tool. The problem is that VW is too "plan-focused," and all of this connection needs to happen in a vertical plane.  Maybe create a wrapper of some sort to contain all the elements). 

 

Just some thoughts with only a half cup of coffee this morning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[line-weight]

I'd like it to put an X on anything that I tell it is rough timber, whether it's a structural member or a generic solid or whatever. Ideally I'd tell it by assigning it to a class, or perhaps if I get around to adopting "materials" by that route instead.

 

Maybe there's an argument it's a redundant drawing convention. It was more important when all drawings were black& white linework. Now, because plans are so often viewed digitally, I'm gradually becoming more relaxed about using colour to distinguish materials etc and I have a specific colour/texture for rough timber.

 

Sorry, going off on a bit of a tangent there.

[rDesign]

1 hour ago, line-weight said:

I'd like it to put an X on anything that I tell it is rough timber, whether it's a structural member or a generic solid or whatever.

One addition to this is that there should be a preference to differentiate wood blocking which only gets a single slash \ though it, not an X. At least that’s the graphic standard that I was taught here in the US. 

Edited April 20 by rDesign

[E|FA]

12 hours ago, line-weight said:

I'd like it to put an X on anything that I tell it is rough timber, whether it's a structural member or a generic solid or whatever.

Second addition to this is that it should add wood grain if it's finished carpentry.  VW already offers these options for 2D in the Detail Cut Wood tool with nominal sizes shown to boot, although you have no control of line weights, fonts, etc.  

 

[Ross Harris]

This is where a parametric object would be great. VW needs something like revit families or briscad parametrize .. users need to be able to graphically create a parametric object. I have one 2d object that makes all the timber cross section objects with x's, a slash and different fills. In VW I have probably 30 2d symbols..