Jump to content

BIM & Class Organization


Recommended Posts

Has anyone happened upon a class organization strategy they're particularly happy with? Willing to discuss/share? We've been using the same class structure since Vectorworks 11.5 and after seeing some of the modeling capabilities of VW2013 think it's time for a re-evaluation. Trickiest sticking point seems to be coming up with a modeling technique that generates acceptable graphics in plan, section and elevation.

We suspect that if our class structure were smarter/more sophisticated, these graphics goals might be more attainable. The knowledge base seems opaque on this matter, and according to tech support, the software was designed to facilitate maximum flexibility for the users, meaning there is no master template file prescribing an ideal class structure. Any thoughts on a best organization strategy?

In case anyone actually has the stamina to read all this, there are screen shots of our current office class structure attached.

mike@bfmarch.com jon@bfmarch.com lynn@bfmarch.com

Link to comment

HI Mike,

I am an advocate of the VWArch standard plus some added for structure similar to what you have. From what I have seen, this follows the VW object naming conventions (whose general principle is to assign classes to materials).

I like the way the VWArch assigns a notes/spec class to the material type vs having a set of notes classes. I think this is more intuitive when turning classes on and off, especially for those who have not works on the file/project previously.

Although the layer structure has changed with levels (and is now more in line with IFC), the class principles are generally the same and seem to work well with IFC.

As far as plan, section & elevational lineweights, this is going to take some creative engineering. I am doing some research into this. Will see how I go.

Link to comment

I use the BB-SfB system as a base, but with my own adaptions. A general rule for getting plan-section-elevations look correct with certain attributes, some classes are actually split in two: one for the attributes of section and texture (sections/elevations/3d) and one for the plan/visible attributes.

Example of duplicates:

* Class - Concrete M

* Class - Concrete V

The M stands for material and is used for the 3d parts of elements, so that their sections will have a hatch and in 3d the texture will show.

The V stands for view and is used for the 2d parts, so that in plan view or for 2d elevations, we can show solid colors or tile fills.

This works really well and is very flexible for customizing the look of your plans.

Your class structure really depends on how flexible you need it to be in regard of visibility and attributes.

I used MAT and VA in the following picture instead of M and V:

ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=8162&filename=Classes.png

Edited by DWorks
Link to comment

Well, usually the local building standard dictates quite a lot, often with a logical setup that is useful even in VWXs. i.e.. different building parts, demolition, etc.

On top of this you'll need to create a system that takes care of extra 2D and 3D solutions (usually as workarounds for VWXs deficiencies in BIM) eg. in my case I have extra classes for putting windows in that are not represented in Top/Plan view but are needed in sections, elevations and 3D visualization. Or the ever irritating hatches on elevations etc.....

Basically this is also what Dieter(DWorks) suggests.

Edited by Vincent C
Link to comment

Great point, we should be taking our layer structure into account. Office layer structure attached. We did away with the slab layers when we narrowed our focus to 2D drafting Imagine those layers may want to come back for the transition to 3D modeling. Assigning layers and classes for individual trades and materials sounds like a promising strategy. Do you have issues with the number of classes and/or layers exploding beyond your capacity to manage/work efficiently?

Link to comment
Do you have issues with the number of classes and/or layers exploding beyond your capacity to manage/work efficiently?

Yeah that's the backside, I have 250+ classes, (however usually only use perhaps 20-30 per project) the new class organization in 2013 will help a lot.

I see you have layers for annotation...I usually use classes for this instead, that makes for fewer layers....imho it is good to try to keep the amount of layers as limited as possible and regulate visibility with classes in (SL)VPs.

Edited by Vincent C
Link to comment
Do you have issues with the number of classes and/or layers exploding beyond your capacity to manage/work efficiently?

We have 400-500 classes and this amount does not give us issues because:

* 90% of all objects come from our library, and therefore are classed correctly.

* Everything has(must have) its attributes by class.

* Our structure is clear, and with a print of the pdf by your side, you find the correct classes fast.

* For setting visibility: you can set this quickly by the class groups, another advantage of the bb-sfb method.

* ...

Link to comment

I totally appreciate this conversation, esp. seeing how others organize their projects. Since we are involved in residential additions and remodeling, we don't have a need for a ton of classes.

I am also responsible for looking at the way we have our classes organized, to see how to adapt to 2013. We have been on 2011 up to this point.We have wanted to do more 3d but we would likely need to modify our classes to help this along.

First, I am delighted to see that classes can now be nested. That should help with the issues of "clutter". We have found that our designers tend to work faster when they have to spend less time dealing with improper visualization and navigation.The "clutter" of a million classes always seems to slow (the non-expert) designers down quite a bit.

One thing I am curious with is how people deal with the concept that all of the object based classes may need to illustrate up to three different states: existing (to remain), demolition, and proposed.I am still baffled as to why most, if not all the cad programs out there haven't really addressed this. (I hear that Revit does now.)Adding two to three times the amount of classes is a "workaround" in my opinion.

For example, we may have the same "style" of wall which may need to be seen on a single drawing in all three different states.

Our "workaround" is to have our wall styles with the parts of the wall to be set to be class dependent. We then assign the walls to an "existing", "demo", or "new work" type class. This way we can change the state of the wall by simply changing the class, and not replacing the wall.

The downside to all of this is we effectively create "special treatment" to certain objects, but not others. We also have to modify all the existing wall styles to work with this, not to mention create special classes to deal with the different appearance of the components. Since we have plans which show all three states on them at times, we cant control this thru viewport overrides. Obviously this seems like a workaround as well, but we end up with a need for fewer classes.

Is there no "ideal" way?

:)

Link to comment

One thing I am curious with is how people deal with the concept that all of the object based classes may need to illustrate up to three different states: existing (to remain), demolition, and proposed.I am still baffled as to why most, if not all the cad programs out there haven't really addressed this. (I hear that Revit does now.)Adding two to three times the amount of classes is a "workaround" in my opinion.

Is there no "ideal" way?

There is no ideal way that I can think of, however, I know 2 ways that do work, but they do require some work(arounds) from the user:

1) Use multiple classes. You really don't need to duplicate all classes so that you have three of them for each state, but some to group things. For example, you will have different classes for exterior wall finishes + one or two for existing wall finish and one or two for demolishing wall finish. The reason I say one or two is because it can be that you want to seperate light finishes and the brickwork. This also will result in multiple objects (like wall styles) etc...

2) Use only normal classes, but split the states up through layers. If you then want to view the things different, using viewport overrides, you just have to use multiple viewports stacked on each other.

I use a combination of both, having the existing condition in another file and using references. I also prefer the classes over the viewport overrides because you then have visual feedback while drawing.

Link to comment
Do you have issues with the number of classes and/or layers exploding beyond your capacity to manage/work efficiently?

We have 400-500 classes and this amount does not give us issues because:

* 90% of all objects come from our library, and therefore are classed correctly.

* Everything has(must have) its attributes by class.

* Our structure is clear, and with a print of the pdf by your side, you find the correct classes fast.

* For setting visibility: you can set this quickly by the class groups, another advantage of the bb-sfb method.

* ...

Same with us, except we only have about 300. I think 400-500 is probably what we need.

We use a long-form structure derived from Uniclass, which AEC UK also derive their structure from:

http://aecuk.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/aecukcadstandardsforlayernaming-v3-01.pdf

I'm not sure we'll move to AEC UK's shortcode structure given that IFC output isn't influenced by VW class structure.

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...