This is a little complex, as it requires a subtle conceptual shift in the way walls and wall styles work - but I think it would be worth it.
The wall styles are great, but when you get deeper into DD - you realize you need way too many to cover all the situations you need. If I need three stud sizes (1,2,3), and three finish assemblies (A,B,C) I need 18 wall styles! - A1A, A1B, A1C, A2A, A2B, A2C, A3A, A3B, A3C, B1B, B1C, B2B, B2C, B3B, B3C, C1C, C2C, C3C. I think the equation is (nF(nF+1)/2)*(nC). Where nF is the number if finish assemblies, and nC is the number of core assemblies - (Now known as Tom's Equation. Math people please correct if I am wrong). This can get out of hand quickly.
Obviously, you do not necessarily need every combination - so your true total will less than Tom Equation - but the issue remains. We realized this when doing our wall type pages and started to develop a new wall type system that I think holds the answer. Rather than every wall being a fixed style that has to account for every combination of finishes, walls should be broken down. Walls would be composed of mixed and matched assemblies consisting of 1 core or structural assembly and 2 finish assemblies. This could be handled in a similar way to how the Rendering tab thinks of walls: core, left, and right.
Right now - the only way to handle wall styles is to dumb it way down. We try to lump all finish assemblies into GWB / Stone. Even with that - we usually have at least 5 different core assemblies, then several rated versions - not counting exterior wall constructions. We can quickly balloon to 20 - 30 wall styles, which is pretty cumbersome and even with that do not achieve the degree of precision we would like. If the finish schedule and wall styles are tied together and controlled via the OIP for the wall - rather than the space object, you can get robust control that easily scales as a project progresses. The project could start with 1 finish assembly, then move generic categories, then when in CDs, the full finish schedule could be applied to walls.
The idealized future benefit of this would be the ability to paint bucket finish assemblies onto the core assemblies without having to change the wall style. As an added benefit to the increased precision, this would then let VW 'know' precisely what finish is being called for and then schedule that information, create keyed finish plans, and display the wall with dimensional accuracy.
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.
Question
Tom Klaber
This is a little complex, as it requires a subtle conceptual shift in the way walls and wall styles work - but I think it would be worth it.
The wall styles are great, but when you get deeper into DD - you realize you need way too many to cover all the situations you need. If I need three stud sizes (1,2,3), and three finish assemblies (A,B,C) I need 18 wall styles! - A1A, A1B, A1C, A2A, A2B, A2C, A3A, A3B, A3C, B1B, B1C, B2B, B2C, B3B, B3C, C1C, C2C, C3C. I think the equation is (nF(nF+1)/2)*(nC). Where nF is the number if finish assemblies, and nC is the number of core assemblies - (Now known as Tom's Equation. Math people please correct if I am wrong). This can get out of hand quickly.
Obviously, you do not necessarily need every combination - so your true total will less than Tom Equation - but the issue remains. We realized this when doing our wall type pages and started to develop a new wall type system that I think holds the answer. Rather than every wall being a fixed style that has to account for every combination of finishes, walls should be broken down. Walls would be composed of mixed and matched assemblies consisting of 1 core or structural assembly and 2 finish assemblies. This could be handled in a similar way to how the Rendering tab thinks of walls: core, left, and right.
Right now - the only way to handle wall styles is to dumb it way down. We try to lump all finish assemblies into GWB / Stone. Even with that - we usually have at least 5 different core assemblies, then several rated versions - not counting exterior wall constructions. We can quickly balloon to 20 - 30 wall styles, which is pretty cumbersome and even with that do not achieve the degree of precision we would like. If the finish schedule and wall styles are tied together and controlled via the OIP for the wall - rather than the space object, you can get robust control that easily scales as a project progresses. The project could start with 1 finish assembly, then move generic categories, then when in CDs, the full finish schedule could be applied to walls.
The idealized future benefit of this would be the ability to paint bucket finish assemblies onto the core assemblies without having to change the wall style. As an added benefit to the increased precision, this would then let VW 'know' precisely what finish is being called for and then schedule that information, create keyed finish plans, and display the wall with dimensional accuracy.
Link to comment
14 answers to this question
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.