Show Existing, Demo, and New Work

[Jim S.]

I am fairly new to VW and am struggling with a  few items. So far I have been unable to find any tutorials, discussions, or links that clearly explain how to organize your file to show existing conditions, demolition work, and new construction.  In the office I am leading the charge to do as much in 3D as possible as I believe it is the most efficient and productive way to tackle a project.  That being said VW has to be the most complicated program I have had to learn in terms of organizing the 3D model.  I hope someone can lend some advice and help. My program background includes ArchiCAD and Revit.

 

The goal:

• I would like to have one model organized through Classes and Design layers that when viewed through viewports on Sheet Layers accurately displays the appropriate construction phase (existing, demo, or new).

 

My approach:

• I have an Existing Plan Design Layer with existing walls on either the "Wall To Remain" or "Wall To Be Demolished" Class.  This shows all the walls the same graphically.
• I have a Demolition Plan Design Layer with only walls to be demolished modeled on the "Wall Demo" class.  This class is set to show demo walls as dashed lines.  In the viewport on the Demolition Plan Sheet Layer the "Wall To Be Demolished" class is turned off and the Existing Plan Design Layer is on as well as the Demolition Plan Design Layer.  This shows my existing conditions as well as the demolition scope. 
• I have a Proposed Plan Design Layer  with only new walls modeled on the "New Wall Class". This class is set to show walls with a heavier line weight. In the viewport on the Proposed Plan Sheet Layer the "Wall To Be Demolished" and the "Wall Demo"  classes are turned off.  The Existing Plan Design Layer and Proposed Plan Design Layer are turned on showing what is existing to remain and new construction.  

 

Problems/Questions:

• This seemed to work until I got to windows and doors. If I am demolishing an existing window and replacing it with a new window of the same size I am able to have my plans read correctly with the approach outlined above, even though the new window on a "New Window" class exists in a wall on the Existing Plan Design Layer.  My problem is when I demolish a series of windows that is not filled in-kind, but instead a new door and series of windows is placed in that opening. Because the existing wall is on the Existing Plan Design Layer I am unable to place the new door in the wall on the Proposed Plan Design Layer.  I am quite confused on how to correctly model (I know there is no ONE way) all these phases together.

 

What I Am Asking:

• Without having three models copied next to each other in the file (come on it's 2018 we shouldn't be doing that), how do people organize their file in a way that allows them to separate the phases of construction.  Please explain things to me in the most basic ways possible.  A detailed explanation or example file would be greatly appreciated and I thank anyone for their help in this issue.  

 

Also:

• Stories are also confusing, which i am trying to use as well in this model.  I think I have an ok grasp on those however. (But I have to say having Design Layers AND Stories, Story Levels, and Story Layer Types makes my head spin.)

[AlanW]

@JimSHi, this may assist, Others will chip in also, would be good to load up a real file but most are for work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFVsO16nAZ0

 

 

[zeno]

I had the same problem. I resolved it without creating multiple models

 

you need only create a lot of class, new slab-wall-window style etc. with specific classes

 

after that you can organize your viewport: you need play with class exeption so you can set different colors as you need. 

 

You must assign ALL components by class. Different classes by old, new and comparised step. 

 

This is necessary because vw show different colors by component-wall in section when the specific elements is projected. 

 

Only if all components attribute are settings by class allows you to manage the colors.

 

 I will send you some picture to better understand

 

 

[zeno]

This is the final work. Only one model, different styles and a lot of classes

 

 

[zoomer]

Nice Presentation !

[zeno]

4 minutes ago, zoomer said:

Nice Presentation !

 

Thanks, zoomer.

 

It was made for a webinar. Here is a very important issue to have the capacity of management the different project phases (like the "variable thickness wall".. but it is a long history I think..)

Edited January 25, 2018 by Zeno

[nrkuhl]

My office uses a combination of the two methods:

By default, we always have an as built layer, on which all walls are styled EXISTING-

For each proposal, we copy the geometry of that layer and new walls are styled NEW-

Walls to be demo'd go in a style DEMO- that also assigns them to class Walls-Demo (so they can easily be turned on and off in viewports).  If we are filling in an opening, we cut out the section of wall and replace with an appropriately styled NEW- wall.

 

We have one grey fill for existing, and a darker grey fill for new, and we apply that fill to windows and doors as well.  We don't schedule existing to remain doors and windows, so that adds a further filter.  Windows or doors replacing existing get scheduled and color coded appropriately.

 

If the project is complex enough to require a dedicated demo plan, we create a demo layer (maybe 50% of projects get these?).

 

So, in 2018 we have multiple models in the same file, existing in the same space, which allows us to overlay them easily and compare.

 

During SD we have several proposal layers typically, and when we move into DD we save to a new file and clean out the un-needed proposals.

 

Stories are also not particularly intuitive.  We've moved to having stairs on their own layer in each story, which helps when you have many proposal layers based around constant stairs.

[Boh]

 

On 1/25/2018 at 12:12 PM, Jim S. said:

What I Am Asking:

• Without having three models copied next to each other in the file (come on it's 2018 we shouldn't be doing that), how do people organize their file in a way that allows them to separate the phases of construction.  Please explain things to me in the most basic ways possible.  A detailed explanation or example file would be greatly appreciated and I thank anyone for their help in this issue.  

 

This is a nice idea but in my experience it takes more time and a very organised file to have one model represent extg, demo and proposed work. When you are working to a deadline it is usually the quickest way that is the best way... Essentially to have ONE model to show Extg, Demo and New is definitely possible but I've found it demanding as the file has to be very-well structured and also quite clean. Getting everyone in your team working to these standards can be quite a challenge!

 

This is my experience:

During the concept stage of a project, like @nrkuhl, I also keep an as-existing model as well as proposed model(s) as things can change a lot so it is good to keep a clean as-extg model to fall back to as a reference.

 

I've found that as I get into construction drawings I will create a new clean file and set it up with the sheets & design layers I need. I either create new one's or import from a template file. I try to clean out as much unnecessary "concept" stuff as possible.

 

Demo drawings aren't usually required till this later stage of the project and as demo work is essentially mutually exclusive from proposed work I find it is easier to duplicate the as-existing model to create a "demolition" model rather than try to use the proposed model to indicate demolition items. The new "demolition" model is simply overlayed over the proposed model so that elements to be removed can be identified, "cut out" and put on a demo class. My demo drawings are typically just 2d so I don't have to worry about maintaining an accurate 3d demo model. As long as it is correct in 2d that is ok. For example where new windows etc are placed in extg walls I just cut out the extg wall in the demo model and place it on a demo class. As it is only seen in top/plan view it does not matter that the whole wall is cut out rather than just the window opening where the new window is going.

 

So in effect I often end up with 3 models: as-existing, demolition and proposed. The demo and proposed can be incorporated into one model easy enough so that the existing to be retained stuff in both is not duplicated however when working on the proposed model I don't like having to turn off the demo classes all the time to clean up my view. (This can be managed with saved views however). Also by this stage in the project the design is pretty well consolidated and it's not too big of a deal keeping an additional 2d demo model up to date. Of course care has to be taken regardless when late stage revisions are made that demo and proposed drawings are updated together.

 

At the start of a project I do do a thorough site measure and before starting design work create an accurate and detailed as-existing model. This minimises up-dates to multiple models later in the project.

 

Like @ZenoI also use "by-class" object attributes as much as possible and have lots of classes. This gives maximum flexibility for viewport visibilites as well as gives the option of using viewport class overrides so that the same objects can have diferent appearances in diferent viewports.

 

I am also trying to implement some office standards amongst my team including encouraging people to use 3d. I suggest you set up some template files. @Art Vmade some really good suggestion to me in this post below. Cheers

 

 

 

[zeno]

15 hours ago, nrkuhl said:

 

So, in 2018 we have multiple models in the same file, existing in the same space, which allows us to overlay them easily and compare.

 

 

How do you use stories for multiple model? I prefer to generate some saved views after creating the different viewport phases, to manage the file with stories (and not increase the file size)

[Boh]

On 25 January 2018 at 12:12 PM, Jim S. said:

 

My approach:

• I have an Existing Plan Design Layer with existing walls on either the "Wall To Remain" or "Wall To Be Demolished" Class.  This shows all the walls the same graphically.
• I have a Demolition Plan Design Layer with only walls to be demolished modeled on the "Wall Demo" class.  This class is set to show demo walls as dashed lines.  In the viewport on the Demolition Plan Sheet Layer the "Wall To Be Demolished" class is turned off and the Existing Plan Design Layer is on as well as the Demolition Plan Design Layer.  This shows my existing conditions as well as the demolition scope. 
• I have a Proposed Plan Design Layer  with only new walls modeled on the "New Wall Class". This class is set to show walls with a heavier line weight. In the viewport on the Proposed Plan Sheet Layer the "Wall To Be Demolished" and the "Wall Demo"  classes are turned off.  The Existing Plan Design Layer and Proposed Plan Design Layer are turned on showing what is existing to remain and new construction.  

 

Problems/Questions:

• This seemed to work until I got to windows and doors. If I am demolishing an existing window and replacing it with a new window of the same size I am able to have my plans read correctly with the approach outlined above, even though the new window on a "New Window" class exists in a wall on the Existing Plan Design Layer.  My problem is when I demolish a series of windows that is not filled in-kind, but instead a new door and series of windows is placed in that opening. Because the existing wall is on the Existing Plan Design Layer I am unable to place the new door in the wall on the Proposed Plan Design Layer.  I am quite confused on how to correctly model (I know there is no ONE way) all these phases together

 

Re your approach. You have essentially still have two models as your "walls to be demolished" are replicated in different classes on both your existing and demolition plan design layers.

 

You do not need to replicate these if you don't want to. Instead if you set all your wall and wall component classes to "by-class" attributes then you could just have one set of "walls to be demolished" objects placed on a demo class which has dashed lines. Then in your as-existing plan you can use viewport class overrides to change the dashed lines into solid lines to match the other "walls to be retained" objects. The override effects only that viewport, elsewhere the demo walls would still have dashed lines. In this way the same walls will be dashed in your demo plan and solid in your as-existing plan.

 

i think also in your approach you are using design layers to control visibilities when this is really the main job of classes. Layers are more for containing groups of objects and (in architectural work at least) usually represent different z heights of a building(basement, ground floor, ceiling, roof etc). 

For example in my suggestion above both the walls to be retained and demo walls are on the same floor so can be on the same design layer (with their visibilties controlled by classes). In fact if you want you could also have your proposed walls on this same design layer as well with one design layer being used to generate your as-extg, demo, and proposed drawings. Generally I wouldn't have multiple design layers representing the same z elevation in the same model if one will do the job.

 

Re the issue about walls and doors: my file set up discussed in my previous post with seperate demolition and proposed models makes it easy to resolve. In my demo model the "walls to be retained" are modelled with the windows to be removed in these walls shown dashed. In my proposed model on a "proposed floor plan" design layer the same "extg to be retained wall" is also modelled but this time with the new door/window configuration. Portions of the "extg to be retained wall" where a window is removed to be filled in with new wall are just "cut" out of that portion of extg wall and placed in my "proposed" wall class.

 

Note that I am not using the same wall to show both demo and proposed as I am using seperate models for these. I don't know with this scenario of different extg and new window configurations there is an easy way to have the "extg to be retained wall" only modelled once. Perhaps others can chime in on that as it is not how I work, I'd be interested to know however.

 

btw as all my doors and windows are inserted into walls I just leave them on the "none" class as their visibility is controlled by the wall they are inserted into. I don't bother with classes for extg and new Windows though I do have a window demo class so that these windows can be shown dashed.

 

Re your query about stories. They are useful for multi floor buildings as they essentially provide a z=0 height reference for each floor. I don't use layer levels myself but I understand that you need to have stories set up in your model to use layer levels.

 

hope that is of some use to you!  Cheers

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Boh

[nrkuhl]

On 1/26/2018 at 3:49 AM, Zeno said:

 

How do you use stories for multiple model? I prefer to generate some saved views after creating the different viewport phases, to manage the file with stories (and not increase the file size)

 

Hmm, if we have multiple layers that address the same sort of level in a story (i.e. first floor as built, first floor demo, first floor proposal 1, proposal 2, etc), usually only the as built is created as a "story level" via the story dialogue box.  The others I just create and assign to the story via the layer creation dialogue.    This is why we've lately been putting stairs on their own layer - this way they can use z references from stories without being confused by the proliferation of layers.  So, stairs from floor 1 to floor 2 have 1-Stair as their bottom level and 2-Stair as their top level.

 

We do a lot of work in existing buildings, and it is typically preferred to keep the stairs as-built or rebuild exactly as as-built due to IBC, so stairs are often a given for us.

 

Did I understand the question correctly?  I don't find myself using saved views much.

[AJIsaaks]

On 1/26/2018 at 10:05 AM, Boh said:

Re your approach. You have essentially still have two models as your "walls to be demolished" are replicated in different classes on both your existing and demolition plan design layers.

 

You do not need to replicate these if you don't want to. Instead if you set all your wall and wall component classes to "by-class" attributes then you could just have one set of "walls to be demolished" objects placed on a demo class which has dashed lines. Then in your as-existing plan you can use viewport class overrides to change the dashed lines into solid lines to match the other "walls to be retained" objects. The override effects only that viewport, elsewhere the demo walls would still have dashed lines. In this way the same walls will be dashed in your demo plan and solid in your as-existing plan.

I agree with Boh here. If you create all of your wall styles and wall components as defined by class, then they will be represented as existing (grey fill maybe) then when you split up the walls for demo, you can move those to the demo class and that's that. You could use viewport overrides to show all walls as grey fill (existing drawing), then duplicate the sheet and then override the demo class to show those walls as red dashed. Same model, different representations. Then when you're working on the model you can turn off that demo class and you have your blank canvas for new work.

 

I find it is useful to have these on one file for reference, and just incase you need to bring some walls back to life after being sent to the demo class, it's easier. But I also agree that this will require some discipline if you're working in an office to keep the file clean and useable without too much fuss.

[zeno]

2 hours ago, AJIsaaks said:

If you create all of your wall styles and wall components as defined by class

 

I think that here and with viewport class overrides you can manage all correctly, without layers duplicating or increasing file's size. 

The most important question is that in a multi component wall ALL the attributes need to be assigned by class and you can manage it from navigation palettes.

 

That's because is the only way to manage for example a new projected elements on a section viewport. There is no other ways to manage it.

 

So the main rules in my opion is

 

1) existing wall styles with component all assigned by class like A_Wall-Ext_Comp-Plaster. The wall style name is WALL A

2) new wall styles with component all assigned by class like B_Wall-Ext_Comp-Plaster. The wall style name is WALL B

3) old wall styles with component all assigned by class like C_Wall-Ext_Comp-Plaster. The wall style name is WALL C

 

The same work for door and windows. Always use a style. Then you manage all on the same viewport.

 

I did so the work you can see on this post. The only problem is that I created something like 550 categories, with duplication and andvanced settings for group renaming (A-B-C for ALL components off walls, doors, windows and stairs). In fact now I'm working for a .sta file with them I can not go to be mad in my all day work. :-)

 

 

[AlanW]

With the framing too am l correct in saying that if i make a change to my wall openings etc i have to totally redo the framing??

A series of extrudes are created from the wall or roof but thats where the link stops.

If so there is a real need for the framing to stay linked to the wall or roof to make it really usable.

[Gadzooks]

17 hours ago, Alan Woodwell said:

If so there is a real need for the framing to stay linked to the wall or roof to make it really usable.

 

Awesome if this could be a parametric solution Alan. (I should live that long!!)

 

I'm reasonably happy with the framer and just re-do framing areas when theres been a change. I even use the framer to provide my external battens for the required ventilation spacers behind render/boarding etc. and because it sets out from the same origin the battens look good in construction details accurately spaced for fixing through to the 'parent' stud work. The framing details we produce are only ever 'design intent' and most always will be followed by a more rigorously designed set of specific drawings from the chosen subcontractor.

 

Realistically, to have options on the type of 'stud' the framer uses (SFS etc) would be a more likely 'gift' from VW. Hopefully this will be just around the corner.