Window Tool - Fixed Glass Jamb Profiles for Commercial

[HP Sauce]

Is there a way to swap the residential jamb profile for fixed glass windows in the Window Tool for a more commercial profile?

Example attached, cheers

[gmm18]

no.

but does WinDoor do this?

[mike m oz]

Windoor can't do what you want either

[HP Sauce]

Forgetting the Window Tool specifically for a minute, is it not possible to swap out the (useless) rectangular jamb profile in the Door Tool for something more realistic?

A generic rectangle is not good drafting practice and causes problems on the field.

[islandmon]

Honestly, there are so many different extrusion profiles ... that specific detailing is required to match the manufacturers profiles per specifications.

A generic rectangle is typically all that is required when pointing to a detail or notation.

Hence a note to "refer to shopdrawings '---' " ...

[HP Sauce]

I had envisaged something akin to the column tool's "get structural shape", but for jambs and what not.

[mike m oz]

This request seems to be driven by the desire to be able to have accurate detail viewports from plans and sections. The problem is though that if complex profiles are used for doors and windows at most scales all you will see is a black blob of ink. Also screen redraw times will blow out and renderings will take for ever.

There is a need to apply a hierarchy of information principle. ie only show what is appropriate for the scale it will be printed at. Therefore show detail in details and not in drawings where that detail will never be visible in the printed output.

[Christiaan]

The problem is though that if complex profiles are used for doors and windows at most scales all you will see is a black blob of ink. Also screen redraw times will blow out and renderings will take for ever.

There is a need to apply a hierarchy of information principle. ie only show what is appropriate for the scale it will be printed at. Therefore show detail in details and not in drawings where that detail will never be visible in the printed output.

I have a wishlist post for this:

http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=100288

[HP Sauce]

Mike,

I understand all that, we're just striving for a more "draw it once and that's it" setup which I realise is probably not technically feasible. Christiaan's wishlist request sounds perfect, I'll keep my eye on that.

[mike m oz]

When drawings were done manual the hierarchy of information was implicitly understood. Plans, sections and elevations showed the what and where and details showed the how. CAD has blurred the line and many want to show detail which will never be visible in most drawings, even the blown up details.

Drawing details like that is fine if you are willing to accept the downside:

- Loss of drawing clarity because elements become simply black blobs of ink on most printed output.

- Loss of clarity because lines will merge. CAD lines thicken around their centre line and if you have drawn accurately (as you need to for accurate dimensioning) then there is no way of preventing this. Its the main reason details drawn this way look so awful.

- The screen redraw hit.

Modelling to that level of finite detail would be very time consuming and the likelihood of the program being able to cover evey possible permutation is zilch. Then there is the question of how far do you go with the modelling? Make it too complex and the modeling overhead would cripple the program.

I know the arguement is to have different representations at different scales but that wil still not accommodate the reality of all the permutations for both plans and sections. For example with windows you can have timber, steel, aluminium and plastic profiles. Each may have different section profiles at the jamb, head and sill. These will vary with the the different window types (fixed, casement, awning, hopper, pivot, double hung, single hung, louvre etc), and the different interfaces (wall types and adjoining windows). Then there are other components like flashings and thermal stops to consider. Accommodating this level of complexity would be impossible to do.

Its easy to forget the purpose - communication of intent clearly and unambiguously to the people who will be doing the work. Trying to shortcut by not drawing details is likely to compromise that purpose and lead to problems.

[islandmon]

Every reputable manufacture provides CAD detailed cut-sheets and prior to fabrication shopdrawings are submitted for approvals. There is not only a hierarchy of information but also a hierarchy of installation. The wall team may only require the rough-opening dimensions. There is power in simplicity.

[Christiaan]

Mike, you inferred that this was about having accurate detail viewports from plans and sections. If this is the case then I mostly agree with you but there're too other reasons for wanting more accurate parametric tools. One is the fact that if you draw anything other than something totally symbolic then you're leaving yourself open to misinterpretation by builders, even at 1:50

Take for instance the wall tool. It allows component joins but it doesn't do every join we need so one can end up with inaccurate junctions at 1:50 that ultimately end up costing thousands of dollars/pounds because the sound testing failed, because a builder misinterpreted the drawings and built a wall junction based on how they looked at 1:50.

The other is simply to promote better understanding at the stage of modelling within the architectural office. The more accurate an object is the better it's relationship with other objects around it can be understood, therefore promoting better understanding in general and better technicians and architects. it also means there's less work to do at detailing stage because your basis is already reasonably accurate.