Stacked Wall Components

[rudybeuc@gmail.com]

Another vote for stacked wall components.

 

I have to create this wall condition in VW...

 

Thanks,

Rudy Beuc

[taoist]

A lot of us have been asking for this for years.

 

Other software does this, why not Vectorworks?

[taoist]

Appreciate the thumbs up.

 

Do not understand the issue of why Vectorworks is unable to do this.

 

Is there something unique to Vectorworks programming that does not allow this?

[Markvl]

It was about 10 years ago that I asked for this.

[taoist]

One can only hope at this point.

 

I am sure I am not alone as to why VW has not addressed this.

There are multiple other Architectural software that will do this.

 

I understand the need for the great strides VW has made over the years

to keep up with status quo if you will.

 

How about "core" tools that we as builder use.

Having to use Extrude surface is a great tool for designers.

 

If VW had the ability of using Extracted Surface along with Materials to report in takeoffs, would be a step in the right direction.

To me, this extra and unnecessary work and time.

 

Will keep asking and suggesting.

 

Would be interested to hear from the software engineers or those who have the input at VW

as to how they expect us as end users to accomplish this goal.

 

FWIW

 

 

 

 

[line-weight]

My solution: stack some wall types manually, and use horizontal sections for floorplans, instead of top/plan view. This way you can get an accurate model, plan and sections without waiting for VW to implement some kind of stacked wall solution that plays nicely with the top/plan approach.

[KWiley]

Stacked walls would be great. As of now I have a layer for my roof and anything that I want seen on elevation views (like the top wall of stacked walls) but not on floorplan views. Not ideal but it works and makes things simple.

[DBrown]

It was promised years ago, but so far nothing, even in the "Roadmap" but nothing yet...
I think that Vectorworks once again just focused the updates for Landarmark or Spotiligh and just crumbs for Architects users...

[rDesign]

Personally, I don’t remember this functionality ever being ‘promised’ by anyone from Vw. They might have said, “yeah that’s something we’re working on…” but that’s as far as it went.

[Jeff Prince]

2 hours ago, DBrown said:

It was promised years ago, but so far nothing, even in the "Roadmap" but nothing yet...
I think that Vectorworks once again just focused the updates for Landarmark or Spotiligh and just crumbs for Architects users...

Landscape architects want stacked wall components too 😉

[Christopher Graye]

The reason stacked wall components has posed a unique challenge for Vectorworks is the unique way it has a Top/Plan view, which is a sort of context-less pseudo floor plan.  It works great if there is no vertical variation to your model on a given layer, and you don't even think about it.  But the limitations become apparent if you start introducing things like stacked components.  You'll notice that whatever your wall looks like in 3D, however tall or short any of the components are, the Top/Plan view looks the same, assuming you are cutting through all of the components.  This is because Vectorworks does not cut through anything or consider the 3D in any way to make the Top/Plan view of walls.  So if we are going to introduce features in walls like stacked components, that has to change.  But as it happens, I was just working on that this afternoon...

[line-weight]

Horizontal sections are the way forward!

[Jeff Prince]

50 minutes ago, Christopher Graye said:

The reason stacked wall components has posed a unique challenge for Vectorworks is the unique way it has a Top/Plan view, which is a sort of context-less pseudo floor plan.  It works great if there is no vertical variation to your model on a given layer, and you don't even think about it.  But the limitations become apparent if you start introducing things like stacked components.  You'll notice that whatever your wall looks like in 3D, however tall or short any of the components are, the Top/Plan view looks the same, assuming you are cutting through all of the components.  This is because Vectorworks does not cut through anything or consider the 3D in any way to make the Top/Plan view of walls.  So if we are going to introduce features in walls like stacked components, that has to change.  But as it happens, I was just working on that this afternoon...

Maybe walls need a dedicated plan view graphic that gives the user the control over the appearance instead of components.

[Christopher Graye]

24 minutes ago, Jeff Prince said:

Maybe walls need a dedicated plan view graphic that gives the user the control over the appearance instead of components.

 

How you would envision that working?

[Jeff Prince]

10 minutes ago, Christopher Graye said:

 

How you would envision that working?

I think most of us do this with class control currently.  I’m not sure what goes on behind the curtains, but having a simple dialog that allowed you to pick outermost lineweights and poche options might be nice.  Currently, it’s really easy to show high levels of detail, but takes a little work to get simple graphics.

[Christopher Graye]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Prince said:

I think most of us do this with class control currently.  I’m not sure what goes on behind the curtains, but having a simple dialog that allowed you to pick outermost lineweights and poche options might be nice.  Currently, it’s really easy to show high levels of detail, but takes a little work to get simple graphics.

 

Did you try using the low detail document preference?  It will remove the components and just use the basic wall fill and line attributes.

[Jeff Prince]

2 hours ago, Christopher Graye said:

 

Did you try using the low detail document preference?  It will remove the components and just use the basic wall fill and line attributes.

Are you saying that would solve this issue of how to display stacked wall components, if they were added to our toolset?

[Christopher Graye]

1 hour ago, Jeff Prince said:

Are you saying that would solve this issue of how to display stacked wall components, if they were added to our toolset?

 

No, it's just a way to get simple graphics.  For stacked wall components, the only real solution is to define where on the wall to take the cut, so we know which components to display.

[Jeff Prince]

59 minutes ago, Christopher Graye said:

 

For stacked wall components, the only real solution is to define where on the wall to take the cut, so we know which components to display.

 

I think that is a mistake.  A symbolic approach would be more traditional for floor plans and site plans.  On sites, it's pretty common for the grade to fall away from your cut plane, which would yield different graphics for the same wall.  Details, Wall Elevations, and Wall Type Sections can tell the story of how the wall is built more effectively than accurately depicting a scenario related to a horizontal cutting plane.  When following the architectural convention of using 4' cut plane, it didn't really matter what the wall looked like at that instance, you would draw the condition where the wall meets the supporting floor, unless something very usual was happening.  These days, you can't get people to agree what it should look like. Most Model and CAD folks seem to desire the literal representation of the cut plane at its instance.  Architect, reviewers, and tradespeople want the critical dimensions of where to layout the wall.  I'm in the latter camp because buildings are still built by people at the moment and drawings are graphic communication of intent of construction, not precise representations of every component.

 

I think Vectorworks should have an industry/customer based investigation into how this should work.   It seems most of the time when a new tool comes along, it's developed from an engineering or technician viewpoint rather than an architect/designer one.

[line-weight]

8 hours ago, Jeff Prince said:

 

I think that is a mistake.  A symbolic approach would be more traditional for floor plans and site plans.  On sites, it's pretty common for the grade to fall away from your cut plane, which would yield different graphics for the same wall.  Details, Wall Elevations, and Wall Type Sections can tell the story of how the wall is built more effectively than accurately depicting a scenario related to a horizontal cutting plane.  When following the architectural convention of using 4' cut plane, it didn't really matter what the wall looked like at that instance, you would draw the condition where the wall meets the supporting floor, unless something very usual was happening.  These days, you can't get people to agree what it should look like. Most Model and CAD folks seem to desire the literal representation of the cut plane at its instance.  Architect, reviewers, and tradespeople want the critical dimensions of where to layout the wall.  I'm in the latter camp because buildings are still built by people at the moment and drawings are graphic communication of intent of construction, not precise representations of every component.

 

I think Vectorworks should have an industry/customer based investigation into how this should work.   It seems most of the time when a new tool comes along, it's developed from an engineering or technician viewpoint rather than an architect/designer one.

 

Although I agree (from an architect point of view) with much of what you say about the purpose/interpretation of drawings, I would prefer that VW moves towards a more literal cut plane, which is what the "horizontal section" workflow is all about. It's still completely possible to choose to over-ride the literal cut with something more symbolic where that makes more sense.

 

There are situations where the "literal" cut plane is more communicative than what top/plan would provide. For example consider a stacked wall buildup where the lowest section of the wall is plinth-like and thicker than the main part of the wall. I'd want to draw the section through the thinner part with the top of the plinth part visible in "elevation" below. Especially if that plinth had some kind of shelf or ledge incorporated. That's how I'd have drawn it in ye olden days by hand too. Top/plan struggles with this kind of thing whereas a horizontal section draws what I want first go. This is just one example, there are many others. I find that drawing with a literal cut plane as a starting point gets me much closer to the kind of control over what's actually drawn, that I had when I used to hand draw, than fighting the top/plan system does.

 

 

 

[Tobias Kern]

Hey VW-Team,

 

stacked Walls would be a dream!

 

But don't forget Slabs.

"Stacked" Slabs should also be considered

and should be come hand-in-hand with stacked walls!

 

Slab with edge insulation should be possible with one Slab-Style!

 

In the example, you see a finish floor with edge insulation

and an unfinished concrete floor also with edge insulation.

 

Greetings from Germany
Tobi

[Tom W.]

2 hours ago, Tobias Kern said:

Hey VW-Team,

 

stacked Walls would be a dream!

 

But don't forget Slabs.

"Stacked" Slabs should also be considered

and should be come hand-in-hand with stacked walls!

 

Slab with edge insulation should be possible with one Slab-Style!

 

In the example, you see a finish floor with edge insulation

and an unfinished concrete floor also with edge insulation.

 

Greetings from Germany
Tobi

 

Now we have Curbs + Countertops it feels like this shouldn't be too big an ask. I'd personally find this more useful than stacked Wall Components.

[Flair-Studio]

My best guess would be to introduce a "graphic appearence section" in the OIP for walls with stacked components, similar to the auto hybrid. 

[Jeff Prince]

3 hours ago, line-weight said:

 

Although I agree (from an architect point of view) with much of what you say about the purpose/interpretation of drawings, I would prefer that VW moves towards a more literal cut plane, which is what the "horizontal section" workflow is all about. It's still completely possible to choose to over-ride the literal cut with something more symbolic where that makes more sense.

 

There are situations where the "literal" cut plane is more communicative than what top/plan would provide. For example consider a stacked wall buildup where the lowest section of the wall is plinth-like and thicker than the main part of the wall. I'd want to draw the section through the thinner part with the top of the plinth part visible in "elevation" below. Especially if that plinth had some kind of shelf or ledge incorporated. That's how I'd have drawn it in ye olden days by hand too. Top/plan struggles with this kind of thing whereas a horizontal section draws what I want first go. This is just one example, there are many others. I find that drawing with a literal cut plane as a starting point gets me much closer to the kind of control over what's actually drawn, that I had when I used to hand draw, than fighting the top/plan system does.

 

 

 

This is exactly why you need the option to depict it literally or symbolically… there isn’t a “correct” answer to the problem.

[line-weight]

46 minutes ago, Jeff Prince said:

This is exactly why you need the option to depict it literally or symbolically… there isn’t a “correct” answer to the problem.

And in the currently existing "horizontal section" workflow you basically do have that option, whereas you don't with the top/plan approach.