HP Sauce Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Our chief Architect refuses to use the bundled layout for the Room Finish Schedule as he believes it causes too many problems on the field. He requires the information to be presented in the format attached, yet i've no idea how to set this up. Any help would be more than appreciated. Quote Link to comment
Jeffrey W Ouellette Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 I think this can be accomplished by using the Space objects and a custom database worksheet by using IF statements to "see" the value of a finish in the Space object as it is formatted there, but then display it as needed in this schedule. I must admit, that this is the first time I've ever seen a Room Finish Schedule like this. It may be "old school" but I have no idea what school it came from... Let me clear a couple things off my plate and see if I can help you out next week. Is that early enough? Quote Link to comment
HP Sauce Posted April 30, 2009 Author Share Posted April 30, 2009 Jeff, I'm with you. Never seen them formatted like this, but apparently it's saved his behind many times in the past so I can't knock him for wanting to keep it. That would be more than fine Jeff, thanks very much! I'll owe you a beer. Quote Link to comment
Jonathan Pickup Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 the space object allows for more control over wall finishes, because you can have different finishes on every wall. this old school method does not. couldn't you ask your architect to take the beast bits out of this and apply them to the space object. What parts of this have been so useful in the past? Quote Link to comment
HP Sauce Posted April 30, 2009 Author Share Posted April 30, 2009 (edited) Archon, If you were to argue this point in hopes of compromise, what are the main benefits of the VW method, or drawbacks to what he wants to use? I'd much rather keep it "factory VW", yet I really don't have a leg to stand on if i were to argue the point now other than it's more work in VW to make it old school. I can't see why you can't assign multiple finishes to a wall with his method... this just in:- "The format is preferred because people on the field can be a bit stupid. They learn the finishes by number, and whilst on the field we often hear supervisor replies to finish questions such as "that wall is 7, floor is 2". Numbering in this fashion is easier for them to both comprehend and remember. Most of them can't count past 10 anyway, so having an alphanumeric prefix only further complicates the matter. All they need to know is "carpet" or "tile", the specific variants of which are in the spec and colour boards. That said, we're open to compromise". (paraphrased). Edited April 30, 2009 by highpass Quote Link to comment
ccroft Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 "The format is preferred because people on the field can be a bit stupid. They learn the finishes by number, and whilst on the field we often hear supervisor replies to finish questions such as "that wall is 7, floor is 2". Numbering in this fashion is easier for them to both comprehend and remember. Most of them can't count past 10 anyway, so having an alphanumeric prefix only further complicates the matter. All they need to know is "carpet" or "tile", the specific variants of which are in the spec and colour boards. That said, we're open to compromise". (paraphrased). Niiice! As a 'person often in the field' I find this highly offensive, and ask that this post be deleted. Not really. But what a Jack-A*%!!! This is the kind of attitude that gives architects a bad name. Quote Link to comment
mike m oz Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Wholeheartedly agree Charles. In my experience using acronyms that aren't reasonably obvious increases the likelihood of errors. Using numbers would almost make it a certainty. Quote Link to comment
HP Sauce Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 If you want his blurb deleted i'll happily do so, doesn't bother me. A few years ago I would have been just as appalled as you at his statement, but working locally in this area of the country has me sadly believing him. It's a harsh statement but after the problems he's had/money he's lost with such people in the past it's fair enough. Anyway, I'm trying to push the more accurate acronyms change but I have a feeling that crossing my fingers won't be quite enough. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.