Auto-connecting complex wall components

[Christiaan]

Auto-connects like this, but want it to auto-connect like this. Is there a way?

 

 

 

File attached: component-joins.vwx

Edited August 18, 2017 by Christiaan

[Markvl]

I do find it odd that VW does not get "like components" joining automatically like the example above.  I've seen programs that use a hierarchy system to determine which components join and when.

[bcd]

If you set the Metsec to be the core in each wall type you get closer but the problem is a wall can only have one core and your WallSepa-240-1 has dual cores.

[bcd]

This brings up an interesting question however- because in reality both leafs of the cavity wall work together to form the core. Perhaps what's needed is> Components'-Sub Components

[Christiaan]

1 hour ago, bcd said:

If you set the Metsec to be the core in each wall type you get closer but the problem is a wall can only have one core and your WallSepa-240-1 has dual cores.

 

Boy you were quick! I uploaded wrong file and then (I thought) quickly deleted and changed for revised one. Problem still exists.

 

This brings up an interesting question however- because in reality both leafs of the cavity wall work together to form the core. Perhaps what's needed is> Components'-Sub Components

Indeed. The system we currently have is not sufficient.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Christiaan

[Markvl]

 

2 hours ago, bcd said:

This brings up an interesting question however- because in reality both leafs of the cavity wall work together to form the core. Perhaps what's needed is> Components'-Sub Components

You're right @bcd .  Part of the problem is that only one component can be a core component.  In the example above we need the ability to make more than one component a core component but calling it a "core component" could be misleading if you're assigning it to two or more different kind of components hence perhaps the need for a hierarchy.

[Jim Smith]

Does going back & using the Core Component Joint Tool not solve the issue?

[Gadzooks]

On 18/08/2017 at 5:12 PM, Markvl said:

You're right @bcd .  Part of the problem is that only one component can be a core component.  In the example above we need the ability to make more than one component a core component but calling it a "core component" could be misleading if you're assigning it to two or more different kind of components hence perhaps the need for a hierarchy.

 

Careful what you wish for guys. Layer after layer of complexity will be like the change from simple stair to the current stair tool (can anyone use it to create anything more than a simple stair ?).

 

It appears to me the join component tool works ok in this instance. VW is not aware you want to join the Metsec - you might have wanted to introduce a 'disconnected joint" (for sound/thermal/other). The fact that you are able to use it to make a tweek to the initial wall join to provide what you wanted seems to give the best resolution. (I assume this is what@Jim Smithis alluding to?)

 

Or are Jim and myself not getting it?

[Christiaan]

On 18/08/2017 at 8:12 PM, Jim Smith said:

Does going back & using the Core Component Joint Tool not solve the issue?

 

It does, but I don't expect to have to do this for one of the most common wall joins we do. It's only complex in the sense that there a few different components. Other than that it's a straight t-join.

 

6 hours ago, Gadzooks said:

Careful what you wish for guys. Layer after layer of complexity will be like the change from simple stair to the current stair tool (can anyone use it to create anything more than a simple stair ?).

 

Agreed, and there's always the risk of asking for a faster horse carriage when you could have a car. But I always expect the car. Having two "cores" is probably the faster horse carriage. I imagine the car looks a little more like how Archicad does it, with hierarchy. It's set and forget kind of stuff.

 

6 hours ago, Gadzooks said:

It appears to me the join component tool works ok in this instance ... The fact that you are able to use it to make a tweek to the initial wall join to provide what you wanted seems to give the best resolution.

 

We sometimes have to make a lot of wall joins, so it's not the best resolution by a long shot. The component join tools works, but we shouldn't need to be using this on all our joins.

 

6 hours ago, Gadzooks said:

you might have wanted to introduce a 'disconnected joint"

 

Not if we want the building to stand up 

Edited August 22, 2017 by Christiaan
grammar

[Gadzooks]

I see where your coming from. The 2D drafting of a project is arguably the money. It needs to be completed quickly and efficiently in terms of the designer so all details are accurate and can be interpreted on site without questions raised. From that standpoint, the 3D and rendering could (should?) be put to one side until basic drafting needs have been met. But things move on. 

 

My alternative would be that that we use the join tool, make the irritating changes required to get it spot on, then use the eyedropper wall connection tool (you know, the one that's in VW 2018) to choose this (weighted skins) variation producing subsequent wall joins. I suppose a bit like Archicad, but this (crucially) would allow VW to maintain it 'leads rather than follows'. 

 

Lets see what 2018 brings...

 

[Markvl]

5 hours ago, Christiaan said:

Agreed, and there's always the risk of asking for a faster horse carriage when you could have a car. But I always expect the car. Having two "cores" is probably the faster horse carriage. I imagine the car looks a little more like how Archicad does it, with hierarchy. It's set and forget kind of stuff.

This is pretty much what I was saying.  Notice how I used the word hierarchy at the end of my sentence.  I don't think assigning more than 1 core component is the answer.

On 8/18/2017 at 1:12 PM, Markvl said:

 

You're right @bcd .  Part of the problem is that only one component can be a core component.  In the example above we need the ability to make more than one component a core component but calling it a "core component" could be misleading if you're assigning it to two or more different kind of components hence perhaps the need for a hierarchy.

 

[AlanW]

Have to say i love the new wall join setup for walls of different type. They used to join on an odd angle but now make sense. Will need to investigate why some components join and if there is a way to control it further but this iteration solves a lot of issues for me.

Thanks