Jump to content
  • 17

'Wall Styles' to reflect real-world construction


Amorphous - Julian

Question

20 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

We do use separate classes for each finish (GL01, GL02 classes for different types of glass... TL01, TL02 classes for different types of tiles). 

In fact, the above elevations were generated by the 'walls components' picking-up up on the different 'renderworks texture surface hatches' of the relevant 'class renderworks texture' (a long, round-about way of achieving 'wall surface hatch by class')

 

Yes- we can use unstyled walls with two 'finishes components' on either side of the wall, but it doesn't resolve the issues of the 'start and stop' and having still to define two different 'finishes components' on either side of the 'core wall'. It becomes the same multiple small, short walls as described. 

Link to comment
  • 0
9 hours ago, Amorphous said:

So, in order to show any kind of construction gap or joint between the two walls, we'll have to make yet another wall type, with a thinner 'component' that sets back from the finished surface, and we'd call this 'gap wall'

Shadowlines, movement joints and even precast concrete joints can be done with a symbol that only half breaks the wall. Then skim the wall with another wall for finishes.

 

Oh I don't agree larger project don't have these issues. Once worked with an Architect who wanted to put If-Then-Else statements in a wall schedule to avoid adding more types.

 

Still, as you say, walls could work more like real world and make life easier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0

I think having the cladding/wall/roof covering as a separate item - yet is smart enough to recognise windows and doors etc is possibly a good approach to consider going forward. This may also open up the opportunity to have 'proper' claddings eg. weatherboards, roofing trays etc.

Link to comment
  • 0

I would like to revive this post, as this is an important topic in the workflow of documentation. 
Creating tens or hundreds of wall types based on 'buildup' or 'finish type' is untenable. 
We need to use BIM as a design tool during the design process, so the team at Vectorworks needs to think about how do we quickly change the interior finish of a room, without a complex process of creating new wall types to accommodate this. 
I hope someone can call Matt Panzer's attention to this issue. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
  • 0
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
On 7/28/2022 at 4:59 PM, E|FA said:
On 11/28/2019 at 4:40 AM, Amorphous - Julian said:

I hope someone can call Matt Panzer's attention to this issue. 

@Matt Panzer See above...

 

I've been watching this one.  🙂 

First, as a user, I really like the idea and it's something we've discussed several times internally.  While I still want us to think hard on this, I will mention a couple things:

  1. To implement something like this would be extremely complex, require a reworking of everything that has anything to do with walls currently (wall inserts, wall features, wall closures, interaction with spaces/slabs/roofs, IFC export, etc.).  This would take a huge amount of resources to do.  It would also likely be very process intensive and have a big impact on performance.
  2. This is also one of those "be careful what you wish for" things.  While I'm the one that likes to mention this idea in our internal discussions, this could have a big impact on workflow efficiency (and performance, as I stated in my first point).  It surly would help being able to model in this way to reduce the number of needed wall styles and to be able to keep certain components continuous while other "finish" components could start/stop as needed.  But there are many cases where you'd want to draw all components for a given wall at the same time because it's faster.  There would be a lot more added complexity with how inserts, wall features, wall closures, spaces/slabs/roofs, etc. interact with these collections of walls stacked side by side.

In the end, it's very possible that the cons of implementing something like this could outweigh the pros.  To clarify: I'm not writing this idea off because I do understand the pros very well.  We just have to carefully consider the cons and there are many.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
  • 0
On 7/30/2022 at 4:51 AM, Matt Panzer said:

 

I've been watching this one.  🙂 

First, as a user, I really like the idea and it's something we've discussed several times internally.  While I still want us to think hard on this, I will mention a couple things:

  1. To implement something like this would be extremely complex, require a reworking of everything that has anything to do with walls currently (wall inserts, wall features, wall closures, interaction with spaces/slabs/roofs, IFC export, etc.).  This would take a huge amount of resources to do.  It would also likely be very process intensive and have a big impact on performance.
  2. This is also one of those "be careful what you wish for" things.  While I'm the one that likes to mention this idea in our internal discussions, this could have a big impact on workflow efficiency (and performance, as I stated in my first point).  It surly would help being able to model in this way to reduce the number of needed wall styles and to be able to keep certain components continuous while other "finish" components could start/stop as needed.  But there are many cases where you'd want to draw all components for a given wall at the same time because it's faster.  There would be a lot more added complexity with how inserts, wall features, wall closures, spaces/slabs/roofs, etc. interact with these collections of walls stacked side by side.

In the end, it's very possible that the cons of implementing something like this could outweigh the pros.  To clarify: I'm not writing this idea off because I do understand the pros very well.  We just have to carefully consider the cons and there are many.

How does BIM/IFC want this to occur?

 

One of things needed in BIM to seperate responsibilities this would seems to be one of those areas where demarkation is required. Say separating Structure from General building envelop and further separating fit-out/interiors from General building envelop. I know, I know the answer is probably that it wasn't considered how to divide up roles as these "standards" seem to have come out of an everything under a single umbrella approach. Still how we work needs either demarkation or double handling. Basically double handling will continue, technology won't make our lives better but everyone will expect higher productivity because of it. 

 

Still if there is an answer to the question it might suggest how the feature wants to work if implemented?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • 0

Thank you @Matt Panzer for your detailed explanation on the difficulty of implementation. 

Coming to rethink what I was asking in the original post - I guess there are three components to my suggestion:

(1) Firstly, it is to reduce the number of wall styles required, just to get the model/ drawings looking right, with real world construction sense
(2) Secondly, it is to easily change the finishes of a room / exterior finishes of a building (as a design tool)
(3) Thirdly, it is to easily use Data Tag to tag the finishes of each vertical surface in elevation view
 

So, after considering your points, I can see how it would be technically different to implement the first point so I no longer insist on it. On the other hand, I would like to make a suggestion that should be highly implementable (for engineers) related to my the second point: To allow component 'classes' to be changed within 'Object Info Palette' for un-styled walls.

So, if we need to quickly test different finishes options for a space, we just 'unstyle' a few walls within a room, and within the OIP change the finishes of the outermost component other material classes, and can instantly see what it looks like. Do you think this can be done?

Following this logic, it would also be great if certain wall style would only carry the 'construction' of a wall, instead of specific materials. In this case the 'finishes class' selected in the OIP can override any finishes of the wall style itself. That way, even if we switch the 'construction' of a wall to dry wall style (or whatever else), the finishes already selected won't change along with it. 

The third point (finishes tag for outermost layer), I don't know whether its possible @Matt Panzer, but since we define our material by class in our office, I would love a data tag to only call out the 'class name' of the outermost component of a wall. 

And I second @Matt Overton point on demarcation. Core / shell and fitout are usually different contractors. If we were to only be involved with 'interior fitout' for a certain project, and we are given an IFC model. What would be the best practice to put our finishes thicknesses over the core walls provided to use in the IFC? If finihses are to be modelled as a 'wall' over the IFC core wall, how do we make these finishes automatically pick up the openings of the core walls?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0

This entire workflow is actually already possible in Vectorworks. The problem is just one of efficiency. We can't snap wall/roof/slab objects to each other and we can't insert objects into multiple walls/roofs/slabs at once. As I understand from Matt, it's these two things that would be a huge undertaking and potentially have a big impact on performance.

 

@Matt Panzer I wonder if there might be another solution? What if instead the ability to manipulate the extent of sets of components is added (which we can largely already do with Slab objects):

https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/95605-ability-to-manipulate-length-of-wall-components/

 

Link to comment
  • 0
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
On 8/1/2022 at 2:42 AM, Matt Overton said:

How does BIM/IFC want this to occur?

 

As I understand it, an IFC "wall" contains all of the wall's components.

 

On 8/1/2022 at 2:42 AM, Matt Overton said:

One of things needed in BIM to seperate responsibilities this would seems to be one of those areas where demarkation is required. Say separating Structure from General building envelop and further separating fit-out/interiors from General building envelop. I know, I know the answer is probably that it wasn't considered how to divide up roles as these "standards" seem to have come out of an everything under a single umbrella approach. Still how we work needs either demarkation or double handling. Basically double handling will continue, technology won't make our lives better but everyone will expect higher productivity because of it. 

 

Still if there is an answer to the question it might suggest how the feature wants to work if implemented?

 

I certainly get the desire to do what you're saying.  There are a lot of reasons why you may want to do this including everything mentioned above and even being able to select different phases (existing, demo, new, etc.) for different groups of components.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

@Amorphous - Julian, @Christiaan, Et al,

 

Thanks for bringing all this up as it's very important to us as we plan future changes to the Wall.  We're familiar with a lot of these requests and we are looking into the best way to deal with them along with other needs.  I will say the idea of using classes to change finishes in components per wall object may be going down the wrong path, IMO.  I think we need to have an explicit finish resource (which could be simply adding more data to textures), a way to apply them per wall face, and even on specified areas of wall faces.  Of course, Data Tags should also be able to report on those finishes.

 

As for everything else mentioned here, we'll be considering this along with everything else we're looking at having to do with walls.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • 0
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
2 hours ago, zoomer said:

Would it conflict with IFC standards ....

 

if Wall Finishing Components would be just another IFC_Wall in front of the Structural Wall.

Or even an IFC_Covering ?

 

We could look at the details for IFC and maybe be able to create a solution but this is a tiny piece of the puzzle I began to lay out in my original message.  There are likely many more parts to consider that I haven't thought of yet.  Like I said, it's worth exploring but there is much more at play than most think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0
18 hours ago, Matt Panzer said:

but this is a tiny piece of the puzzle I began to lay out in my original message.

 

Of course 🙂

 

Like all Wall inserted Element should influence, or at least cut, the outer or inner

finishing layer. Which may need different top/bottom heights but somehow react

to Wall (and or Slab changes) ...

 

So my question was more about if BIM/IFC standards currently would prohibit such

attempts at all. Or just accept and show stacked Walls with their openings and

the major Wall parent to inserts like Windows or Doors.

 

  • Like 1
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
Answer this question...

×   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...