Jump to content

creating shed roof


Recommended Posts

Use the AEC > Roof Face Tool.

Create the shape you need using rectangle or 2D polygon Tools.

Select Roof Shape

Click AEC > Roof Face

Set Parameters

Click OK

Click at bottom edge (fascia) of roof line and trace left to right for a short distance then click

You will see a black triangle

Select direction of upward slope (towards Gable)

Make sure point of triangle is pointing up

Switch to side or Iso view and enjoy the view.

See attached images

Link to comment

Roof Faces and Roof Objects are not the same. I seem to have ranted on this in the past. My main issue with Roof Faces is how texture is applied. The top texture merely wraps to the sides of the Roof Face object. This is not the case with Roof Objects were the sides are controlled independently from the top. This makes texturing a lot easier...or in some cases possible when otherwise it would not be.

I hope someday there is an easier way but for now to make the same thing with a Roof object you have to draw the rectangle and use the Create Roof Object to create a hipped roof with the overhangs on all sides. Then you have to change the side and top edges to Rakes and adjust the overhangs independently. Overhang would be zero for the top. Set the slope from the leading edge.

Roof Faces have the ability to join to one another but since we are forced to choose, I've chosen to forgo that feature and build all my roof components with objects and not faces for consistency in modeling and texturing. It would be great if Roof Faces became single plane Roof Objects with all the advantages of both. I suspect that is coming someday along with a major Roof Tool overhaul that adds Roof Components. Lets hope they get it right the first time when it happens.

One note, unless modified by SP4, Roof Face textures assigned by class are controlled by the 'other' tab while Roof Object textures are controlled by the 'roof' tab. Another reason for my desire for consistency.

Link to comment
Roof Face textures assigned by class are controlled by the 'other' tab while Roof Object textures are controlled by the 'roof' tab. Another reason for my desire for consistency.

That's because a Roof object isn't really a basic object, it's a group of Roof faces. I find the Roof object too limited and never used it since I once tried it. I do start with a Roof object most of the time, but then ungroup it to it's original Roof faces. With roof faces, you have much more control and you can make any kind of roof that's too complex for the Roof object, which in most cases is the case for our roofs we make. Even the additional options like facia etc... aren't correct for us.

Edited by DWorks
Link to comment

I was where you were at one point. The Roof Object was introduced I think in VW 9. It took until VW 12.5 until I adopted it. (for the record I updated from 12.5 all the way to VW2011.)

The trick is to not try to construct your entire roof out of a single Roof Object but out of a collection of Roof Objects with holes cut where needed...as in the shed dormer roof example above. Cross gables can be made with a single Roof Object reshaped with an extended ridge line to meet the main Roof Object.

With polygons of any shape able to be used to cut any Roof Object down to your desired shape I have found in recent years that I can make a roof design of any complexity.

I have to ask, how do you texture the vertical surfaces of your Roof Faces? Its often not an issue for us because we'll wrap trim or a crown around the roof line but for simple flat fascias they are usually exposed. To clarify..I'm not talking about the built in fascia creating option. We never use those either.

One other limitation is that Roof Faces do not interact with symbols for the insertion of skylights or the dormer maker as the Roof Object does. We seldom have need for these but its nice when you need them.

Link to comment

One other limitation is that Roof Faces do not interact with symbols for the insertion of skylights or the dormer maker as the Roof Object does. We seldom have need for these but its nice when you need them.

I use hybrid symbols for skylights and cut the hole in the roof face. For dormers, we use walls with a window in it, you can have more what you want that way.

Link to comment

I have to ask, how do you texture the vertical surfaces of your Roof Faces? Its often not an issue for us because we'll wrap trim or a crown around the roof line but for simple flat fascias they are usually exposed.

We only use the roof face objects for the finishing of the roof, so all other things are drawn on another way, so texturing isn't a problem and the roof can have one texture on all sides.

We also have our own gutter and backboard object that we draw around the roof.

Edited by DWorks
Link to comment

Interesting and little-known Roof Face factoid: The line drawn by user to define slope is exactly coincident with the Roof Face's "Bearing Height" (check in side view).

For this reason I often begin by drawing the rectangle (or poly) that defines the roof area with zero eave overhang. I can then very easily snap to the edge of the object during creation, to define a precise Bearing Height (as it relates to the wall's top plate). I then add overhangs via "Add Surface"...

Link to comment

The AXIS Z setting of Roof Faces was always confusing. Never could you set the proper Z height at the initial creation. Always had to make the roof and then set it in place from the elevation or create some other workaround. Changes in thickness or fascia height on a double miter always meant tweaks to the height. Change in pitch also resulted in a fascia height change unless you had a zero overhang. The Bearing Height, Bearing Inset, and Eave Height settings in the Roof Object make the results predictable and easily edited...from a vertical height standpoint anyway.

Early on the extend wall to roof command didn't work with Roof Faces but only Roof Objects. Perhaps that one has been overcome. It was one of the deciding factors, along with the items previously mentioned, that led me to use Roof Objects exclusively.

I will admit that getting the right shape can be a chore and the limited ability to just extend a surface in any direction is also limiting but once I caught on to breaking down the roof into assembled Roof Objects with cut out perimeters and openings I found their advantages far outweighed continuing with Roof Faces. I haven't modeled a roof with the face tool in a couple years.

I don't think Roof Face technology changed between the miniCAD days in the mid to late 90's until they added the ability to join them together a few years ago. And I think that was the only improvement that has been done in all that time. I was surprised. I thought NNA had abandoned development of Roof Faces in favor of the Roof Object years earlier. Whichever tool you choose to use I think we can all agree there is a lot of work yet to be done. Mainly, consolidating the best of both tools into one tool and adding Roof Components. Similar to Stairs...providing two separate tools to achieve the same task but each with independent abilities and pitfalls is not good practice.

Link to comment

Yes, this is what I was referring to as zero overhang.

However, doesn't the position of your pivot change depending on which type of miter your roof has? My understanding is AXIS Z represents (in section) the lower outside corner of the roof at the plan drawn slope line. For a vertical miter its along the bottom of the roof thickness, for horizontal miter its along the top of the roof and for double miter it somewhere in the middle.

Even if you work that out you still have to deal with the unwanted change in height of the vertical leg of the double miter when changing a pitch.

I'll stick with typing in a bearing height and a bearing inset and a distance for vertical leg of the double miter and knowing all three will only change if I change them regardless of changes in pitch and thickness. I don't think that is usually the case with Roof Faces. Also I like being able to modify an overhang by typing in a new value instead of doing a reshape of a polygon.

The only thing I feel I'm giving up is the automatic joining of roof faces and I'm not really giving that up because I can always duplicate and explode a couple of roof objects to faces, do a quick join to find a valley, then use that line to shape my Roof Objects while deleting the faces used to find the valley.

I'm not trying to win a battle here. One of the great things about VW is the many ways to skin the cat. I'm just trying to be clear why I don't see myself going back to Roof Faces any time soon. I'm losing out on a lot of features of Roof Objects using Faces and I feel I'm missing very little by using Roof Objects.

Link to comment
providing two separate tools to achieve the same task but each with independent abilities and pitfalls is not good practice.

And what do you think the new slab tool is? It's a group of the old slabs/floor objects. Like the roof object is a group of roof faces. They aren't the same. A roof face is the smallest part, a roof objects is the composition of it.

Link to comment

I guess I'm not fully understanding the point. Yes, Roof Objects are made up of Roof Faces allowing you to break up the objects to its face components (this is good when you need it) but the creation process, editing, texturing, interaction with surrounding objects and plug-ins, parametric settings, etc are very different between the two object types as we have been discussing. In my eyes, this makes for two very different tools with different abilities both put forth to accomplish the same task. Neither are perfect and both are in need of an update.

My intention in first joining this thread was to simply illustrate to new users the many reasons why a Roof Object might be a better choice than a Roof Face even for a single plane roof like a shed roof. I'm sure they are now able to weigh the pros and cons and join the debate.

Link to comment
but the creation process, editing, texturing, interaction with surrounding objects and plug-ins, parametric settings, etc are very different between the two object types as we have been discussing.

Creation is faster, that's true, but there isn't interaction with surrounding objects and plug-ins. You can place 3D symbols in it and create skylights or dormers, but they aren't drawn like we do them here, so technically they aren't good, so we have nothing to them. The paramtric settings we can use are also on the roof face.

The roof object is good if you are building it that way (not here in our country), but otherwise, roof face objects are much better to use because they are faster and more adjustable. Try making a roof with different starting heights. I can give you many roofs that you can't make with it, even when you split it into multiple roof objects.

Link to comment
My intention in first joining this thread was to simply illustrate to new users the many reasons why a Roof Object might be a better choice than a Roof Face even for a single plane roof like a shed roof. I'm sure they are now able to weigh the pros and cons and join the debate.

This depends on many factors, so we let them decide themselfs. I really respect what you are saying, but because many users get frustrated at roof objects, I always tell them they can ungroup it into roof faces, and then they are happy again.

Link to comment

I would like to see what roof designs you are saying can't be built using Roof Objects. I do some exceedingly complicated roofs using Roof Objects. I find it difficult to believe there are some planer based roof designs that can not be built using them.

There are aspects of technique and work around that I use that may not be evident in this discussion. For example, adding corners and reshaping is often dependent on the order of operation like taking away an overhang to accomplish a reshape and then bring it back. I had many frustrations in this area when I first started using them. Especially before I started breaking down my roof objects to more basic components.

I recently had to model a vaulted gambrel roof and provide both interior and exterior model views. A nightmare for both tools since gambrel is a totally unsupported roof type. I ended up using stacked Roof Objects each representing a component of the roof so my interior finish could extend just to the point I needed it at the underside of roof joints while my framing stopped at the wall plate and my sheathing extended out over my crown moulding and trim. Quite complex and made me long for a single Roof Object with inherent components each with independent perimeter offsets. But considering I was able to manipulate multiple faces at a time in a single Roof Object plus the need to 'enter' every face in order to get the the polygon to reshape I feel this would have been more difficult overall with Roof Faces but perhaps easier in some ways like combining faces.

I am finding it quite easy to duplicate and explode roof objects in order to gain the ability to combine roof faces where I need to define hips and valleys but I then return to the Roof Object for perimeter reshape and/or cutaways. It is quite effective and allows me to keep the other advantages of using Roof Objects I have mentioned.

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

From what I can see there is a problem with the create roof face tool which prevents it from working optimally at least with square miter roof edge.

For the roof to model correctly, the polygon that is used to generate the roof plane needs to be the lowest inner point of the roof.

Axis Z represents the height of the lowest point of the roof. On a square mitered roof it is the inner corner.

The problem is that when you set your roof face in this manner, then the 2d hybrid object does not show the roof correctly in plan. It will represent in 2d the inner polygon, (which is the underside of the roof) not the roof as it really projected plan. There is no way to use the top plane of the roof, and make roof thickness a negative number.

My only workaround is to "draw over it". Kind of a dumb solution, but not impossible one to execute.

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

Updating this debate with VW2013 tools...along with ideas for much needed improvements.

It appears the Roof Face and the Roof Object tools have been moved a little closer together. How texture is applied to Roof Faces have been improved to match how it is applied with Roof Objects. Also, symbols for skylights, etc, can now be inserted into Roof Faces the same as Roof Objects.

Key differences that remain are the inconsistent bearing height of roof faces with changes in Roof Face eave condition. Also unwanted changes in fascia height with changes in Roof Face pitch.

Why such an incremental improvement to Roof Faces and not a wholesale change?

Do away with the mysterious AXIS Z setting of Roof Faces and match the Bearing Height and Bearing Inset of the Roof Object tool. Bring the methods of cutting holes and shaping edges closer together by making the Roof Face method match the Roof Object method. (Right now I'm teaching employees how to cut holes in Roof Faces and Floors, Roof Objects, and Slab Objects....3 different methods for 3 very similar operations. Is this not kind of crazy?)

This improvement to Roof Faces would also give overhangs a parametric control like Roof Objects instead of relying on a polygon reshape.

It seems to me that rather then taking the Roof Face tool and slowly over many upgrades making it more like Roof Objects we should just add a Single Plane Roof Object tool that functions exactly like a single plane roof object I can make on my own but only after many modifications to the hips that are created automatically every time a make a new Roof Object. Give these new 'single plane roof objects' the ability to extend and join to other roof objects or other 3d geometry to match what the Roof Faces can do now. Wouldn't this be the best of both tools and converge two very different interfaces into one?

On a side note, I've been experimenting on turning on the 'attics' of the Roof Objects and using them to add ceiling joists that align with the rafters created with the Framing tool. If we have the ability to do this along with the ability to toggle on gable end walls (which I have never put to practical application) then why can't we add a control for 'truss knee height' in addition to 'bearing height' with automatic toggles for turning on solid shapes representing the perimeter chords of a truss? This feature would also create a vertical solid at the high end of a shed roof where the vertical chord of mono truss would run. In this way simple building sections get a solid hatch at the ceiling plane without the creation of a separate ceiling slab. They also get solid hatch at the vertical ends of the trusses when required without additional modeling or 2d patches. Similar to the current 'attic' feature the Framer then uses these shapes to automatically generate at least the perimeter of each truss using the Framing Member PIO (simto the current method) or create a new Truss PIO that the Framer could use to fill the area defined by these solids created by the Roof Object tool.

It doesn't seem like the current technology is too far away from these features.

Here's hoping for VW2014.

Oh, and all that with Roof Components, as well. This would probably lead to the hole cutting and edge reshaping method of Roofs to want to match that of current Slab Objects as the ultimate goal of the roof tool development. How many upgrades will be needed before we get there?

Joe

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

Just discovered a bug in the Roof Object tool. When making a Roof Object into a single plane shed roof it will no longer allow you to cut holes in it per VW2013. This worked fine in VW2012. If you take a gable roof object with a hole cut in it and then turn one eave into a gable to make a single plane shed the hole disappears. The polygon is still embedded in the roof, however. It just doesn't cut anymore.

The latest SP2 update doesn't fix it.

Looks like there is no longer a choice here between Roof Faces and Roof Objects. Good thing they fixed the rendering issues with Faces at least. The other issues with Roof Faces mentioned in previous posts still apply, however.

Joe

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...