v2020 _"Great Sections" care to share.

[Matt Overton]

Surely "Great sections" would be enough to warrant examples lots of examples as both plan and section, before and after on the same model. Care to share?

[Matt Overton]

Ok so they are horizontal sections neat.... had a play and well.... at the risk of offending some of the team these are not great....

 

They are promising but if I run tests on useful test cases then they fall well short of delivering outcomes.

Maybe that is why the market sort of brushes over them.

 

- They are not of the standard that they could replace an ordinary plan even in the situation that the building is complex enough that an ordinary plan requires drafting gymnastics. Generally to slow to cut render. Like other sections have quirks in all the wrong places.

 

- They do produce nice solar penetration diagrams and I assume if you have lighting scheme in model useful lighting studies.

- Rendering Interiors plans for presentations and similar final output.

- Well except you need a heliodon or light for each time you want to test.

- So that does highlight the need for per viewport time of year lighting settings.

 

More generally

- Cut Plane and Extents setting are a mess and don't make a lot of sense in the context.

- What does infinite mean in the context of cut plane?

- Why is story or layer cut plane not an option?

- Why can't the extends up or down be relative to the cut plane in use?

- Views will require a lot of set-up in use but that work isn't recyclable across files by the looks of things.

- Even recycling in file looks problematic.

 

 

[Matt Panzer]

7 hours ago, Matt Overton said:

More generally

- What does infinite mean in the context of cut plane?

 

If the cut plane is infinitely high, nothing will ever get cut. This could be used for a roof plan, for example, and you would not need to worry about part of the model later getting cut because it became taller than the cut plane.

 

7 hours ago, Matt Overton said:

- Why is story or layer cut plane not an option?

 

It can be relative to a story or story level and well as a layer. It cannot, however, be relative to a design layer cut plane (as you mentioned). There are reasons that we didn't add that option. 

 

7 hours ago, Matt Overton said:

- Why can't the extends up or down be relative to the cut plane in use?

 

This was considered but, for a building, it makes more sense to have it relative to stories.

Example: If you decided to raise the cut plane for a particular floor plan, wouldn't you want the extents above and below to stay put? If the extents below were at the bottom of the slab and the above extents were to the top of slab above, raising the cut plane should not change those extents. Likewise, if you made a story of the building taller, the extents above will remain at the top of slab above.

 

7 hours ago, Matt Overton said:

- Views will require a lot of set-up in use but that work isn't recyclable across files by the looks of things.

 

Yes. There is a bit of setup. And yes, viewport styles would be a big help. 😉

 

7 hours ago, Matt Overton said:

- Even recycling in file looks problematic.

 

Right. I believe the better way to handle this (than relative to the cut plane) would be to be able to have the extents relative to a story above or below.