Wall components to top and bottom bound to layers of storeys.

[Dieter @ DWorks]

We can link walls to other layers of storeys, but most of the time, the inner part of the wall needs to go to the top of the slab, while the outer part needs to go to the bottom of the slab. So we need to be able to set the bounds for the components, not the overal wall. We now have to edit the extre offset of the component each time a slab get another thickness!

[Guest]

Well you wouldnt think that they would be able to sort out the structural components as yet.....simply because they arent interested in anything structural.This begs the question, "the Extreme Architectural Building featured with 2012..LOL, is the brickwork in tension... is that building supposed to fall down?Please provide real world examples/features-HTH

[Guest]

the inner part of the wall needs to go to the top of the slab, while the outer part needs to go to the bottom of the slab.

BTW, its the other way around..the inner part of the wall goes to the underside of the slab...for bearing. You can export it to Scia and the engineer can fix your mistake it will costs you and Extra $20K (LOL,if he doesnt have scia)

[Dieter @ DWorks]

the inner part of the wall needs to go to the top of the slab, while the outer part needs to go to the bottom of the slab.

BTW, its the other way around..the inner part of the wall goes to the underside of the slab...for bearing. You can export it to Scia and the engineer can fix your mistake it will costs you and Extra $20K (LOL,if he doesnt have scia)

??? With our building system in Belgium and many other european countries, the inner part of the wall is on the top of the slab, the outer one comes lower. I'll attach an image to show you.

The free height of the floor rarely change, and if it changes, it was no problem and is also no problem with storeys. But the total height of the slab package is something that changes many times during the time of the project. With storeys now, we have no advantage and we still need to edit all walls to edit the extra offset of the components of the walls with the really frustrating part that all your wall connections will get lost after doing so. So the work we had changing the heights are still there with storeys. And that's a real bummer.

[Christiaan]

Perhaps BDC was talking about the top of the wall?

[Christiaan]

We now have to edit the extre offset of the component each time a slab get another thickness!

That's sloppy

[Guest]

Yeh..same difference (I build from the bottom up) the inner part of the wall goes to the underside of the slab (above) or the inner part of the wall is on the top of the slab (below)..... but VW does nothing with slabs,who takes responsibility for that?

[Dieter @ DWorks]

We now have to edit the extre offset of the component each time a slab get another thickness!

That's sloppy

Yeah, I know. It's the same in v2011. Changing the slab package forces you to manually change the components offset of walls, which will undone the wall joins, so you need to rejoin all walls again. And that is still the major thing to be done. Changing the free floor height could easily been done now, and that's the only thing storeys do easily. That's why I'm dissepointed by those storeys.

That's also the reason for my other wish:

If you can set key elevations for storeys without having a layer for them, you could set the wall components to those key elevations, and chaning the floor package will then just needs you to change the elevations of those key elevations in order to change all elements dynamically with them. We only need 4 key elevations for that:

* bottom ceiling finish

* bottom construction slab

* top construction slab

* top floor finish

Edited September 15, 2011 by DWorks

[Chris D]

Dworks, I think we can all agree that this wall components not relating automatically to storey AND slab is a bit of a deal breaker for the whole storeys idea. And why you lose wall connections in plan when you edit wall component heights in section is beyond me. I can also agree with your key elevation principle for FFL, SSL etc. I wouldn't want to lose the option to have multiple design layers per storey though.

[Guest]

Whats really going to be funny is Bleep when the structural elements come back from Scia (Via IFC) when you have to add and shift every Bleep thing. Concrete slabs. beams , Columns, etc,etc, not to forget your 4 key elevations.LOL....Thats what comes from being a structural denier....NNA can pretend those elements dont exist in their projects?

Edited September 15, 2011 by BuildingDesignConsultant

[Dieter @ DWorks]

Dworks, I think we can all agree that this wall components not relating automatically to storey AND slab is a bit of a deal breaker for the whole storeys idea. And why you lose wall connections in plan when you edit wall component heights in section is beyond me. I can also agree with your key elevation principle for FFL, SSL etc. I wouldn't want to lose the option to have multiple design layers per storey though.

The option to have multiple design layers per storey is great, don't get me wrong here. It's just that it would be better if we could choose to have a layer or not on a key elevation. Or just have them seperated.

For those wall components: I know that when floors are attached to walls, they cut out the components and then I don't need to set the offset for each component, but the deal breaker here is that you can't always attach floors to walls because you can't always connect walls like they should. So in the end, the idea is really great and IF all worked like it should, it will be wonderfull. But if it doesn't works like it should, like now, things like not be able to set wall components to storeys etc... are really needed.

Lets all hope it getting better and better. I just want to know or see where they will be getting. Maybe they should post a roadmap? Because that can clear up many things.

[VincentCuclair]

Whats really going to be funny is (an a*** kicking) when the structural elements come back from Scia (Via IFC) when you have to add and shift every F***** thing. Concrete slabs. beams , Columns, etc,etc, not to forget your 4 key elevations.LOL....Thats what comes from being a structural denier....NNA can pretend those elements dont exist in their projects?

I don't know what your hash is with NVWs (apparently there is one seeing you seem intent on being very anonymous) but except for the missing/still to be added features pointed out by some others on this forum, VWs delivers basically the same as Revit, ADT and ArchiCAD in this respect if not more intuitive, so I don't really understand your issues here?

Edited September 15, 2011 by Vincent C

[VincentCuclair]

It's just that it would be better if we could choose to have a layer or not on a key elevation. Or just have them separated.

Isn't that already possible? I think you can customize what layers are created in each story.......

....I'm new at this but I think if you want to work as it was in 2011 all you need to do is simply have one layer for each story.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Vincent C

[Guest]

Well I know you can add beams to 200mm thick concrete slabs (monolithic) in Archicad and Revit...Hmmm whats your solution (using VWA's) I suppose you can increases the slab thickness to 400mm and tell the client he, no longer requires a structural beam....

[Dieter @ DWorks]

It's just that it would be better if we could choose to have a layer or not on a key elevation. Or just have them separated.

Isn't that already possible? I think you can customize what layers are created in each story.......

....I'm new at this but I think if you want to work as it was in 2011 all you need to do is simply have one layer for each story.

That's not what I mean. We just need key elevations in storeys so that our objects can bound to that. But those key elevations now require a layer for them, and most of the time we don't need those layers. There will be nothing on them. The only reason they will exist is for bounding objects to. this clutters up the layer list and makes us work slower. We just need to be able to set key elevations withouth the added layer.

[Guest]

It's just that it would be better if we could choose to have a layer or not on a key elevation. Or just have them separated.

Isn't that already possible? I think you can customize what layers are created in each story.......

....I'm new at this but I think if you want to work as it was in 2011 all you need to do is simply have one layer for each story.

That's not what I mean. We just need key elevations in storeys so that our objects can bound to that. But those key elevations now require a layer for them, and most of the time we don't need those layers. There will be nothing on them. The only reason they will exist is for bounding objects to. this clutters up the layer list and makes us work slower. We just need to be able to set key elevations withouth the added layer.

Then a Z (or maybe 3D Vector values) should be added to classes...

[VincentCuclair]

It's just that it would be better if we could choose to have a layer or not on a key elevation. Or just have them separated.

Isn't that already possible? I think you can customize what layers are created in each story.......

....I'm new at this but I think if you want to work as it was in 2011 all you need to do is simply have one layer for each story.

That's not what I mean. We just need key elevations in storeys so that our objects can bound to that. But those key elevations now require a layer for them, and most of the time we don't need those layers. There will be nothing on them. The only reason they will exist is for bounding objects to. this clutters up the layer list and makes us work slower. We just need to be able to set key elevations withouth the added layer.

Ah i see what you mean, is it possible to have one layer for each story and then use different z-offsets for each building part on that story whilest referencing/bounding building parts to each other ie. Wall from top of slab to ceiling etc. ?

Forget this ...not possible.....yet......perhaps we could get an option for hiding layers that we don't use, as you point out correctly, a building of 10 floors will have a minimum of about 35 DLs thats already a lot to keep track of.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Vincent C