Farookey Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Hi All... Can someone please confirm whether this is by design, or a bug (VW2012)? This is regarding the option in Advanced Properties (of a 'Section Viewport') called 'Merging Adjacent Components With Same Fill' under the 'Display' tab. I have a wall and slab style set up with some auto bounding features, including 2 stories containing; a layer for walls and a layer for the slab/floor. The 'Wall Style' shown is bounded to the 'Top of Slab Story Above', with the structural block-work and internal finish offset to the slab thickness, i.e. -4". The component representing the beam therefore displays 'in front of' the top of the block-work and covers it. When the above feature is unchecked, the Section Viewport displays these element (almost) as I want it to, with the exception of the lines separating components of each object. This is supposed to be rectified once the feature above is checked. However, on execution, although the lines disappear, for some odd reason, the walls in the below story take precedence and displays 'on top of' the beam areas. Unchecked [img:left]http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=6846&filename=Feature%20Unchecked.png[/img] Checked [img:left]http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=6847&filename=Feature%20Checked.png[/img] How does Vectorworks determine whether a layer is shown above or below another layer in a Section Viewport? Normally the layer stacking order would determine this, but it seems not to be the case with these 2 elements; Slabs and Walls. Bug, or what? Thanks Edited March 20, 2012 by Farookey Quote Link to comment
Chris D Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Farookey - just a note that you can display attachments inline by editing your post, inserting an image from the toolbar and using the attachment URL.. Edited March 20, 2012 by Chris D Quote Link to comment
Farookey Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 Close enough.... Thanks... Now, comments on the problem?! :-) Quote Link to comment
VincentCuclair Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Looks like the slab and block work are placed 'behind' everything!? Don't know why, could it be influenced by the layer order or something like that? Quote Link to comment
Farookey Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 Hi Vincent... Probably should have mentioned that all that is shown are 2 walls (story 1 and story 2) on top of each other, and one slab. They are all styled with components; wall is block-work with internal and external finish, and slab with finished floor, slab, and beam. Also, as stated before, the layer stacking order seems NOT to have any affect on the display. So, the first image is how I want it displayed, but I need to merge the components with same attributes... Thanks again Quote Link to comment
bcd Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 What happens if you change the core offset to -12" Quote Link to comment
Farookey Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 bcd... It would work in this case. But where there are different beam sizes etc., it would require further duplications of wall styles. What I am trying to do is create default wall styles and slab styles that can be used as an office standard, without having to do much further editing each time a different type occurs. The idea is to keep this further editing to a minimum, and it should work, without work arounds, as this adds more confusion to the others in the office. If you get what I'm saying... Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The beams should be inserted into your wall. Then they will cut out the wall that isn't there. Problem solved. How exactly do you draw your beam? Quote Link to comment
Farookey Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 The beams are part of the Slab Style. An additional component below the slab portion of the 'Slab'. Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The beams are part of the Slab Style. An additional component below the slab portion of the 'Slab'. Then you just need to bound the slab to the walls. Quote Link to comment
Farookey Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 The finished floor is bound to the inside of the core component of the wall, as you can see in the image, and the slab and beam components are bound to the outside of the core component of the wall. The problem is in the display... Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The finished floor is bound to the inside of the core component of the wall, as you can see in the image, and the slab and beam components are bound to the outside of the core component of the wall. The problem is in the display... If it really is bound, then it should cut out the wall. So when this is really the case, then you have encountered a bug. Please check again if it is really bound and it's cutting out the wall. Otherwise, file a bug. Quote Link to comment
Farookey Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 It's bound to the walls on the story above (Story-2). Hence the interior finish (of the wall) is cut out by the floor finish. This is working fine. I do not expect it to cut the walls below which it is not bound to (hence my slab thickness offset of 4"). It would cut the walls in the below story only when they are bound to them. But this would not be good practice; to bound the slab (above) to the walls below. Do you understand what I mean by the problem to do with the display? Why do the walls take preference (sent to front) after that merging components option is selected? Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Why do the walls take preference (sent to front) after that merging components option is selected? Because that wall is in front of the shape of the floor, but by merging, the object with the background is always taken to add to, that's why you get this. It's how the program works. You have to re-think what you are doing to get the correct result. YOu will only get what you want when it's actually drawn how it will be build. Edit: I do believe, and want this myself, that slabs should always cut out walls, even if they are not bounded to it. Edited March 21, 2012 by DWorks Quote Link to comment
Farookey Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 The only way that this can be drawn exactly as built, is if the block-work stops below the beam. And the reason I stated that I did not want to do this is because I will end up with a Wall Style for every beam depth in a drawing. How VW works with displaying whats in front and behind is difficult to grasp interestingly enough. That's why I think (if it is not a bug) then it needs to be fixed. For instance (you can try it yourself), place 2 walls, preferably with different fills in the same space or overlapping each other, and cut a section through them. Toggle the Merge Component settings in Advanced Properties, and you will notice that the display of which wall is in front changes. If in plan, wall 'A' is behind wall 'B'... With it unchecked: Wall 'A' shows in front (in section) With it checked: Wall 'A' shows behind as was drawn But there are other factors that I am exploring now... Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The only way that this can be drawn exactly as built, is if the block-work stops below the beam. And the reason I stated that I did not want to do this is because I will end up with a Wall Style for every beam depth in a drawing. That's one reason to only use wall style as predefined walls. Just unstyle them. We only use wall styles to get the correct classes components and then we unstyle them to set the thickness of the components, because it can vary through a building. If you use your classes like it should be, I can't see why you can't use unstyled walls. Quote Link to comment
Farookey Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Hi Again... Since I last spoke on the subject, we changed the way we wanted to create Wall Styles for the office in order to minimize the number of styles available as default content. This actually means that a few features of having Wall Styles had to be sacrificed, and the user would have a little more to do, than if it worked ideally with correct bounding heights etc. (not my idea). Office Standard stuff aside, I still managed to find a solution/work-around to my little problem. Maybe it is still a bug, which I believe it is, but it seems that if the ground floor slab is added to my initial set-up the Section VP brings the slab component 'to front'. But then I have a foundation layer below this which would have walls in it, and placing these, brings me back to square one! So, I added a footing to the Foundation layer made of the same slab component that I wish to show 'in front'. However, it only (finally) showed correctly when the (foundation) walls were 'sent to back', and the slab in front. It is doing some weird stuff, after a good set of playing around with it, but at the moment this is the best solution which can easily be explained and executed to my colleagues. I still think it is a bug though, and would prefer a more stable (and logical) solution, rather than having to work-around if VW can hear me! Working Slab [img:left]http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=6888&filename=Working%20Slab.png[/img] Edited March 29, 2012 by Farookey Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I still don't see the problem. You just have to draw it as it is. Bound the slabs and thus let them cut out the walls. Quote Link to comment
Farookey Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 DW... Both, ground and first floor slabs are bounded to the corresponding walls (i.e. ground floor slab is bounded to the GROUND FLOOR WALLS, and first floor slab is bounded to the FIRST FLOOR WALLS). In order for it to cut the below walls AS WELL, the slab would ALSO have to be bound to the (affected) walls of the floor below. This would get more complex with a more complex building, and calls for additional work each time the boundaries of a slab has to be picked, and may even open up another can of problems to 'work-around'! Yes, I do like the fact that it can be drawn EXACTLY as built, but for the purpose of simplifying things for the rest of the office, it may end up being more of a headache than anything. However, I accept that it would be the ideal way to create a model as it is to be built, but my intention is to make the process as effortless as possible, rather than pulling your hair out trying to figure out work-arounds for each individual instance. My main concern was the 'DISPLAY' of the elements involved, and this still does not answer the question of how 'WILD' the results are and WHY! Maybe if this can be simply explained so it is understood, then I'd be content that it is not a bug, but made so by design. Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 If the height of these 'beams' is always the same, why don't you let the wall component have that offset? Can you send me or post the file? I will look at it. Maybe there is another way of doing what you want. Another question: How exactly do you make the slabs? Do you cut out the lowest component to get those 'beams'? Quote Link to comment
Farookey Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 DW... The 'beam' depths are not always the same (as I mentioned previously), as they may vary depending on area and project, etc. This is not for a specific file. I am creating custom default content to be used for office standards throughout the office with as much ease as possible. The idea with these sections is to minimize annotations being drawn over certain areas, but at the same time making it easy to utilize the tools in order to achieve the desired results. Currently, the walls are set up as per materials, and sizes available. The finish components and their attributes are all set by class, but the block-work is set by 'Object Class'. This is so that 1 styled wall can have a different look depending on the class it is in. They are also not bound (by default) to any level type in particular, as this will be a manual operation, where the height of the wall is determined by the class it is in (or vice versa). Neither are any of the components bounded by any offsets. I am totally aware of the 'sacrifice' of automatic classes and bounding options by doing it this way, but this is how the main director at the office wants it to be. Note that the external component of the wall should run continuously up to meet the wall on the floor above, and the interior render should (seem to) stop below the slab. Hence, if the (relatively) accurately drawn slab is displayed 'in front of' the other geometry, the desired effect can be achieved. The Slab shown has 3 components: (From Top) the floor finish with screed, the actual slab, and the beam. The attributes for the slab and beam components are the same. The 'beams' are created by manually clipping that particular component out of the Slab object. The different components of the slab styles are also bounded to different parts of the walls. With the addition of stories which has also been set-up, drawings can be carried out relatively simply by my colleagues, with a certain office standard. I am aware of ways to achieve this on an individual bases by drawing the EXACT way it is built, but with simplified defaults, I wish to do this with as little HEADACHES as possible! All I require is an explanation of how the stuff is DISPLAYED, or an acknowledgement that the way it VW currently displays is a bug! For the time being, we believe the current WORK-AROUND will suffice... Until of course we run into any unpredicted errors! 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.