2021 - Material Control Over Cut

[Tom Klaber]

Material currently seems to controls fill and texture.  Material should also control cut fill. 

[Andy Broomell]

It should do that currently if you have your Section VP set to "Use Attributes of Original Objects":

 

[Tom Klaber]

@Andy Broomell 

But the Material Resource does not have a section fill option.  So if I have a wood floor - the hatch I want to use in plan is different than the one I want to use in section cut.  It does not appear that you can control that at the material resource.  

[Andy Broomell]

Ah yes, I see what you mean. Materials should have the ability to specify a separate fill for when it's Cut, separately from its general Fill.

 

Perhaps Materials were designed with the Wall tool in mind, where the Plan representation is already inherently "cut." But you're right that for something like a floor, this doesn't work out so well. Having that control would be nice.

 

What are you using to model a floor? (Extrude, Slab, Floor, Auto Hybrid, etc.).

[Tom W.]

I'm not sure what is meant by 'Materials' but I agree it would be really useful to be able to assign a separate section fill to something like a Floor Object rather than only be able to show a hatch (for example) in section by assigning it as a 2D attribute that you'd also see in Top/Plan. I just want a solid white fill in plan, not a hatch.

 

I recently discovered that I couldn't rotate the texture on a Slab Object so had intended using a Floor Object for the floor finish (i.e. the top component) so that I could rotate the texture + get it looking the way I wanted it (the direction of floorboards or parquet flooring or a herringbone brick pattern for example). But hadn't realised this would affect how the overall floor was shown in section.

 

So this request gets my vote. But at same time be great if you could vote up my request 'Texture Mapping for Slab Objects'

 

 

[Tom Klaber]

5 hours ago, Tom W. said:

I'm not sure what is meant by 'Materials' but I agree it would be really useful to be able to assign a separate section fill to something like a Floor Object rather than only be able to show a hatch (for example) in section by assigning it as a 2D attribute that you'd also see in Top/Plan. I just want a solid white fill in plan, not a hatch.

 

 

Materials are a new resource in VW 2021.  They operate outside of classes and contain both visual attributes and product data. 

[Tobias Kern]

hi,

 

if materials have not a separate cut fill option,

then we need this asap.

 

my opinion is, that every class (additinal to materials) have different settings for:

 

- cut

- not cut

- before the cutline

- behind the cutline

and for all of this separated settings for: high, medium and low

 

so we have a lot to define, but everything looks as we want.

 

and in the cut we can choose object wise:

- cutted: visible with class settings

- invisible

- not cutted: visible like not cut

- not cutted: visible like before cutline

- not cutted. visible like behind the cutline

 

 

[Matt Overton]

12 hours ago, Tobias Kern said:

hi,

 

if materials have not a separate cut fill option,

then we need this asap.

 

my opinion is, that every class (additinal to materials) have different settings for:

 

- cut

- not cut

- before the cutline

- behind the cutline

and for all of this separated settings for: high, medium and low

 

so we have a lot to define, but everything looks as we want.

 

and in the cut we can choose object wise:

- cutted: visible with class settings

- invisible

- not cutted: visible like not cut

- not cutted: visible like before cutline

- not cutted. visible like behind the cutline

 

 

Add to that many material are directional.

Ie. section cut , textures, attributes can be different in one direction X or Y even Z.

 

I say this because we it is an impediment good drawings. The material in 2 instances within the same section might run different directions creating all sorts of class complexity to solve.

 

Edit: maybe this more another resource Components perhaps.

Made up of materials like timber makes ply. Rafters make floor structures.

Edited September 17, 2020 by Matt Overton

[_c_]

Materials should only control data or allow such an exclusive usage.

For the management of attributes we have classes.

 

As @Tobias Kern correctly put it down, the representation of a material is complex depending on the cut plane.

So what do we do? A material for each display?

 

Currently we are in the very awkward position to be unable to use materials when you need a below cut/cut/above cut representation. Or you need three, or more, materials,

Vectorworks is very lacking in the proper display of these basic drawing standards for high objects such as walls, windows, doors, wrapping around wall/slab openings, etc.

 

It is getting very indirect, the interface is very scattered.

Do you all agree to cut a section viewport, set up all the various display options, just for seeing the display on drawing?

 

 

 

[Tobias Kern]

and atm horizontal cuts have a different handling as vertical cuts.

 

you only have the full control to overwrite objects object-wise in horizontal cuts.

vertical cuts have limitations in this behaviour.

a overwrite by class, works in both cuts.

 

so not only the kind of representation (classes, materials)

is important, the kind cuts are been made is important too.

all cuts should have the same behaviour.

 

21 minutes ago, _c_ said:

For the management of attributes we have classes.

 yes and no.

the setup for physical attributes is better in materials directly

 

... and we need tags for objects, to control their visibility

independently from classes.

with tags, i think we could have a new freedom of control.

[_c_]

8 minutes ago, Tobias Kern said:

yes and no.

the setup for physical attributes is better in materials directly

 

We are speaking about the same:

 

I repeat:

Materials should only control data [physical, economical, etc.] or allow such an exclusive usage.

For the management of attributes [colors, pens, textures etc.] we have classes.

[Tobias Kern]

yes, seem logic to me.

 

… and tags (with a menu like the classes have) for the structuring of objects 😉

[drelARCH]

3 hours ago, _c_ said:

Materials should only control data [physical, economical, etc.] or allow such an exclusive usage.

Cant you do that with setting material's fill and texture attributes to use class style?

[_c_]

Yes. And you need a different class for

• sectioned
• above cutting plane
• below cutting plane

Since a material is tied up to a class or fill type, you need either 3 identical materials to cover these 3 needs.

So you cannot split appearance from data.

Data must be independent.

[line-weight]

I was hoping that the new "material" resource was something that I could apply to an object or component, which would then define how it appeared when rendered/drawn in elevation/drawn in section. As well as containing data about the material itself. And that this would replace my current method of using class to control these things.

 

Reading the above, it doesn't sound like this is the case. It sounds like it doesn't release me from using class to define these things, but somehow operates in parallel and not consistently. It sounds a bit of a mess.

 

It seems particularly odd that it can't control appearance in a section cut, because in fact a section detail usually has the purpose of distinguishing different materials - hence all the different section hatches that are conventionally used in construction drawings. Materials are only sometimes indicated in elevation views, and often by a note rather than a fill.

Edited September 18, 2020 by line-weight

[_c_]

It could be what you want if one could define above/below and cut plane display.

As it is now, you only block the fill.

 

Let's say you set it up for displaying as cut, for example insulation, using an appropriate hatch.

So if you need a material for displaying your insulation above, for example, you are compelled either to duplicate the material or to renounce to it or that hatch will show.

Any way the pen is dealt elsewhere.

 

For me the materials should enable a data-only usage.

[Tom Klaber]

@_c_ I somewhat disagree.  Having classes defining materials is what we have done up to know and it causes class conflict.    When you use classes to define materials, you have many instances where an object wants to be in 2 places at once.  Is it A-Millwork or A-MAT-ASH OAK?  Is it A-Floor or A-MAT-WOOD FLOOR 1?  

With Materials - we solve that problem where the object can be in A_MILLWORK but then have the material be controlled by a separate centrally controlled resource.  I see no reason why this resources could not control cut hatch, above + below, plan hatch, and render texture.  I think this new resource is a great foundation but needs to be expanded.  I am glad that it is making the classes needed smaller.

[Tom Klaber]

5 hours ago, drelARCH said:

Cant you do that with setting material's fill and texture attributes to use class style?

Yes. There is the best of both worlds here.  You can set the material to default to class attributes, or define overriding ones. 

To each their own!  

Currently you can not control pen attributes - which is fine by me. 

[The Hamma]

You can control the hatch in a section using data visualization.  

 

See the attached files

 

2021 Test File.vwx 2021 Test File.pdf

[_c_]

 

Rrrright.

Now please make a whole plan set with some 10 floors, sections etc. etc. where elements are cut, or not cut, or above cut plane. In the same drawing.

You can also cut sections and configure them with all needed overrides (and BTW, how cumbersome is that?)

 

As it is now, you'll need three materials for achieving the basic display of above/below/cut plane.

If they could give you class control for above/below/cut plane they would be good.

Or concentrate on data only, which is what I would prefer.

 

I love materials, it is by far the best improvement, but the attributes display is in the way of their core functionality: data.

[Art V]

3 hours ago, _c_ said:

As it is now, you'll need three materials for achieving the basic display of above/below/cut plane.

If they could give you class control for above/below/cut plane they would be good.

This should be preferred if you want flexibility of how it is displayed, though how a material looks at cut plane is basically a property of the material and as such I agree with @Tom Klaberthat it should be controlled by the material. It simplifies management of materials to some extent.

[_c_]

 

You should try a little bit with wall components at various levels of cut plane and see how it works for you.

 

[Art V]

For me it is not walls as much as it more about materials in general.

 

Walls are usually of little importance in the kind of work I do, they're mostly only there for visual purposes to indicate there is a wall and what its dimensions are and perhaps the kind of material (wood/concrete/brick) and that's it. Components are of little importance in my case. So my needs for this are more generic than those of an architect.

Which is why materials controlling the cut level display would be quite useful as it saves me from having to create another class (or set of classes).

[_c_]

I see. 

No, here in Germany we have a norm for the drawing standards, we need to comply rather strictly and, as it is now, it doesn't work. It even prevents workarounds, since you cannot override wall components any longer.

 

I welcome Materials with all my heart, but I hope they let us use them for what they are mainly for: data.

If the resolve well the drawing standards as we must, I am looking forward to apply also their attributes.

[Tom W.]

As a complete novice in all this but one who is interested in the discussion @_c_ could you give an example of what you mean when you say you need to show the same wall differently in different sections? I thought @Tom Klaber was right to say that Section Fill is something that should be controlled in Materials but haven't understood what you mean about needing to show different fills for the same component in different contexts. Apologies for my ignorance I am very much a learner driver here! But fascinated to learn how people work + use Vectorworks. Thanks

[Art V]

@Tom W. It depends a bit on how you define material. Some materials have a directional component and would look different in horizontal and vertical cuts or when looking from top, front, side etc.

 

A recognizable example could be cardboard. At the very basic level it is paper, so you could display it as paper regardless of how you look a it.

Or you say that cardboard itself is a material including its structure (i.e. directional component).

When you cut across the cardboard you will see a solid flat layer, the ribbed/sinus shaped structure and another solid flat layer. When you cut parallel to the flat layer/plane it will look differently.  In that case, when it matters for materials that are directional, you may want to make clear what you are looking at in your cut views, the horizontal or vertical cut view and from which side. If the hatching would be the same for all you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

Then there is the issue of view representation where the material itself may not have be directional (or it's not relevant in that case) as in the first posts of this thread where you want to specify whether you are looking at a top view or a (side) section view and have a different hatching for each of them.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Art V