Make PIOs decompose into editable objects

[P Retondo]

I'm trying to edit a "custom" door (strange group of choices on the menu there!).

After ungrouping, I find, to my dismay, that some of the objects are "generic solids," something we can't edit with VW. It should be a developer standard that all PIOs when ungrouped should, at their root, be composed of the most easily-editable object forms - i.e., they should all be extrudes, if possible, and boolean subtractions and additions should be avoided when not necessary. Same goes for those PIO objects that are done with NURBS surfaces when they could be extrusions.

While I'm on the subject, how about a truly parametric customizable door and window object? Enter data in a table combined with a graphic WYSIWYG interface to manipulate the form of the object.

By the way, I was demonstrating VW to an architect friend, and he was highly impressed by the "sill" object in the window settings window. I was too ashamed to tell him that it doesn't really work - that the settings don't allow us to manipulate the sill in the way that real windows are constructed, and that we still get an extraneouos bottom window frame clunked on top of the sill when we opt to show a sill. Again, what would be so hard about allowing the user to construct the actual sill profile as a polygon, and let the PIO use that to form the sill?

[P Retondo]

While I'm at it, I never have understood why door and window frames and rails and stiles and mullions are composed of two mirrored objects. A 1.5" door is composed of two identical mirrored 3/4" objects. This makes it take twice as long to customize them. Plus, instead of having the objects composed of a single extrude, they are always made with solid additions and subtractions. I'd bet dimes to dollars that it takes no less code to do this than to add the 2d polygons before extruding. A simple extrude is easier to edit than a boolean solid.

[islandmon]

While I'm on the subject, how about a truly parametric customizable door and window object? Enter data in a table combined with a graphic WYSIWYG interface to manipulate the form of the object...

what would be so hard about allowing the user to construct the actual sill profile as a polygon, and let the PIO use that to form the sill?

Obviously, the programmers NEVER actually use the program in the Real World. Somebody needs to set the ground rules for these things.

Plus, instead of having the objects composed of a single extrude, they are always made with solid additions and subtractions. I'd bet dimes to dollars that it takes no less code to do this than to add the 2d polygons before extruding. A simple extrude is easier to edit than a boolean solid.

The correct protocol for complex profile objects with curves is >polyline>NURB>ExtrudeAlongPath.

Solid additions and subtractions should be avoided whenever possible.

[P Retondo]

The correct protocol for complex profile objects with curves is >polyline>NURB>ExtrudeAlongPath.

Islandmon, one of the objects I'm thinking of when I call for extrudes (from a plan view polygon) is the roof fascia. Would you agree that a simple fascia is easiest to edit as an extrude, rather than as a NURBS object? When you ungroup a roof, you get roof faces (nicely editable), but a set of NURBS surfaces for the fascia that are the devil to modify.

I'm not sure what PIO you are thinking of when you refer to a "complex profile" - but I do agree that Extrude Along Path is an important tool, and often the best one for the job.

[islandmon]

Apply a simple Extrude to simple polygon shapes.

Path Extrude for more detailed and complex polyline profiles.

Can't comment on the RoofTool cus i don't use it.

ExtrudeAlongPath allows me to model most everything as Hybrid symbols.

[P Retondo]

Extrude Along Path would be easier to edit than a set of NURBS surfaces when it comes to modifying the roof PIO fascia. That would be the logical choice if a fascia with trim profiles were part of the PIO. Since it's currently a simple rectangular cross-section (otherwise build it yourself!), a simple extrude would be best for that particular item.

Curious: I see the advantages of doing 3d modeling using hybrid symbols, but I wonder how much extra time is involved in working that way? First in creating the 2d version (probably a wash when compared against dealing with graphics issues in presenting 3d objects in 2d drawings), but more importantly, making it more difficult to edit the 3d object. The symbol edit space can't access contextual relationships to other elements of the building.

BTW, this reminds me that I had a thought about extrudes: they should be represented by the 2d source objects when in Top/Plan view, giving us the graphic advantages of hybrid objects plus giving further incentive and reason to keep those 2d base objects registered with the position of the 3d extrude. That protocol would have to be abandoned if the extrude is moved out of Z axis-normal orientation.

[islandmon]

Curious: I see the advantages of doing 3d modeling using hybrid symbols, but I wonder how much extra time is involved in working that way?

Yes, certainly Hybrids require an extra layer of complexity ... but they are invaluable for doubling checking the 3d work and for 2d Labeling of component assemblies.