Extracted Planar Objects in Viewports

[Guest BillV]

The ability to use planar objects in cross section viewports in 2013 is great news. I would be interested in comments from users re the fact that the extracted polygon is not associative. Basically if you move a window or door the extracted polygon does not change. From a productivity standpoint this is a real negative. NNA knows about this but feedback from other users as to how they see this will be valuable in getting this changed.

[Dieter @ DWorks]

We need the ability for 3D hatches instead of what you are asking. It will be much simpler, less work, and better in all circumstances.

[GWS]

The ability to associate ANY object to another is long overdue. The lack of it makes for an extended editing workflow and causes hours of grief.

[VincentCuclair]

What we need is like they have in Revit, materials that have (3D-)hatches, textures, line styles, etc, the works (in Revit you can even choose/define 3 different levels of detail for each of these hatches, textures, etc i.e. they have different user defined representations at different scales!)

Materials would ideally be resource browser resources, that can be edited, duplicated, copied from file to file and applied to any wall, slab (and hopefully soon, roof) components, they would thus encompass all settings needed for all representations (sections, plans, detail, visualization etc) in a file for these components.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Vincent C

[Christiaan]

The ability to use planar objects in cross section viewports in 2013 is great news. I would be interested in comments from users re the fact that the extracted polygon is not associative. Basically if you move a window or door the extracted polygon does not change. From a productivity standpoint this is a real negative. NNA knows about this but feedback from other users as to how they see this will be valuable in getting this changed.

Under no circumstances use this method. Unless you're happy to slit your wrists at the end of the process. Look up posts from my colleague Alan H to see how much fun he had using this method.

He started a project using this method in v2012 and was dogged by bugginess and general unfriendliness. We are still dealing with bugs in v2013 that won't finally be quashed until v2013 SP2.

[Alan H]

After modelling a project containing 3 buildings this way I would recommend that you avoid it!

I don't think that this is a very good work flow, for the following reasons:

1). It is very time consuming to produce, hatches have to be manually extracted from surfaces, all parts need to be combined to show correctly over different levels/storeys, then they need to be given classes/hatch etc..

2). All hatch faces have to be manually aligned so that the elevations show the correct brick coursing/cladding positions.

3). One of the biggest problems is that hatches are static and doesn't adjust with the model, so when the model changes, which it has several times, then the elevations need to be re-hatched.

4). Updating viewports can also take quite a while.

5). I had to chop the model up where i needed to take sections through my building to show some of the elevations in VW 2012 (This was too much of a workaround in the end). However section viewports in VW2013 would make this al lot easier.

6). The biggest problems where bugs, usually only noticeable when i needed to issue information. (some minor but there where quite a few major issues in the software which caused me to miss deadlines).

I've had stability issues where the drawing would be very unpredictable and not show hatches correctly, geometries would show through from the other side of the model making the drawings un-issuable or hatches would not show at all.

I've also had issues where SLVP's showed on screen perfectly but where not being able to be exported to PDF's, which was extremely stressful.

If you are determined to give it a try i would hold off till they solve some of the issues, these should hopefully be dealt with when VW2013 SP2 comes out.

On the plus side, when produced (AND WORK!) the hatches do create clear sharp images which is good for construction documents.

But after all these bad experiences I can't see myself EVER using this workflow for any future projects.

A few of my colleagues are using renderworks to show materials, which although not ideal, seems to be a much better way to show materials, at least it will adjust with the model.

There needs to be a much simpler process that adjusts with changes in the model. I.e Vector based 3D hatches, as a top priority for VW to develop, and definitely released for 2014. All the competitors have had this for years now!

Edited October 23, 2012 by Alan H

[Joe-SA]

I've used this method on numerous residential projects and although I have also had similar issues. When you consider the alternative for black and white construction document drawings is 2d hatching in annotations, however, I didn't find this method so horrible a process as to never use it again.

I created a preset set of classes with most of the exterior material we typically use. I place all my planer objects that are on one layer in a single group for easy manipulation with the Show Groups toggle off. If later revision is more then a simple reshape of existing perimeter or openings I just re-extract it.

I have noticed a bug in the Attribute Mapping tool where if you nudge immediately after selecting your object the new location won't 'stick' but if you drag the origin to a new location and then 'nudge' it will stick.

For the planer object 'bleed through' bug we've done 2d hatch patches just on those elevations to fix it or we have actually classed our planer objects to another tier per elevation allowing us to turn off the backside elevation while keeping the front side on.

Whenever this process does break down, 2d hatch in annotations used in conjunction with it seems to get us to what we need.

I'm not defending this process and saying it is 'good', that all the suggested improvements are not valid, or saying the process isn't tedious. All true. Still - its a method I will likely use until such time as it gets replaced with a better method.

Joe

[Christiaan]

When you consider the alternative for black and white construction document drawings is 2d hatching in annotations, however, I didn't find this method so horrible a process as to never use it again.

Neither is acceptable really. The only economical method in VW is Renderworks.

[VincentCuclair]

The only economical method in VW is Renderworks.

Which however, doesn't export to dwg into anything usable for 3rd parties......

[Christiaan]

So far we've found non-hatched hidden-line DWGs coupled with PDFs to be sufficient. Makes us look amateur to some I guess but that's where we are with VW.

[VincentCuclair]

We have to make a choice soon what platform we're going to use in the future at the office I'm at currently, I really want to continue with VWs, however we have 2 unused Revit licenses (which we want to convert back to AC architecture if possible), the other architecture offices we work with all use ArchiCAD, which is probably the most logical choice so that we can exchange native files etc. Though I'm pushing for VWs it's just to much extra work to justify...... I need to customize basically every part of the work flow to fit both local building standards and an architects workflow and much needs to be redone every new release. ArchiCAD is a very accomplished CAD app with an agreeable GUI and have an extremely good local customization and support, that's hard to beat and lots of time saved. Guess I'll keep VWs for my private practice on the side........

[Christiaan]

ArchiCAD is a very accomplished CAD app with an agreeable GUI

I'd argue that's ArchiCAD's one great weakness. It's just a screen full of buttons made from 90s icons.