Popular Post Tom Klaber Posted September 15, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted September 15, 2020 Material currently seems to controls fill and texture. Material should also control cut fill. 11 Quote Link to comment
0 Tom W. Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 Thanks @Art V that makes a lot more sense thanks for taking the time to explain. I was trying to visualise the same wall component looking different above + below the cut plane but yes I can absolutely see how you might want to show some wall components one way in horizontal section + another in vertical section. Mostly for me the same hatch/fill is fine in both situations but yes something like solid wood for example I've found quite unsatisfactory where longways grain is right for one view but not for the other where crossways grain would be more appropriate. But this only applies in detail drawings, not general plans/sections where such a level of detail would be out of place. For me at least. So far Quote Link to comment
0 zoomer Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 What I don't get so far with VW Materials and its Editor. There are single materials and composite materials. (Like reinforced concrete = concrete+steel) Both look totally identical in resource manager. But when you want to edit a Composite Material you can just edit by adding or deleting more Composites ? You need to close the composite material again and open one of the child Materials again, before you can edit these ? I see no way in Material Editor to directly jump to the settings of a Composite to edit. I can't even recognize in RM, what is a pure single Material and what is a Composite Material. Quote Link to comment
0 Art V Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 1 minute ago, zoomer said: What I don't get so far with VW Materials and its Editor. There are single materials and composite materials. (Like reinforced concrete = concrete+steel) Both look totally identical in resource manager. Yes, this is something I ran into as well and kept me wondering how it is supposed to be used/work. This seems to be a case of NSTWI (New Shiny Tool Without Instructions) 1 Quote Link to comment
0 _c_ Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 If you look well, you'll see that they have a tiny icon on the bottom right corner. You might oversee it if your resource manager is set to display the resources as list: You don't edit them in the composite editor, you just assemble them. You edit them in their quality as singular material. It is true that a contextual right-click option while selecting a part could be helpful: 3 1 Quote Link to comment
0 Art V Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 Just read the help file on this and it wasn't of much help 🙂 Most of it was clear except this: "Enter the percentage of the selected material within the compound material. Each simple material in a compound material can be set to 1-100%; materials do not have to total 100%." In theory one can keep all percentages at 100%, so with three different materials in a compound material one might expect the following for getting 100%: Material 1: 20% Material 2: 30% Material 3: 50% But it could also be 20/20/20 making a total of 60% or 100/100/100 making a total of 300%. Or it could be that it recalculates the values in proportional percentages relative to the listed percentages, e.g. keeping all 3 materials at 100% would equal into 33.3333 % part in the compound material. What bothers me about this lack of information is that without trial and error I have no idea how the mass of a compound material will be calculated if the total of the composing materials is not 100%. @JuanP could you please elaborate on this? 1 1 Quote Link to comment
0 rDesign Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Art V said: But it could also be 20/20/20 making a total of 60% or 100/100/100 making a total of 300%. Or it could be that it recalculates the values in proportional percentages relative to the listed percentages, e.g. keeping all 3 materials at 100% would equal into 33.3333 % part in the compound material. What bothers me about this lack of information is that without trial and error I have no idea how the mass of a compound material will be calculated if the total of the composing materials is not 100%. I am really confused by this as well: In the Concrete Reinforced Precast MT (UK, also US) posted above, the Steel Rebar % is at 100% of the Material volume, equal to the volume of Concrete. An equal ratio of Concrete to Rebar seems a little high to me... In this instance, I don’t see the point of using Materials for quantities estimating if the Reinforcing Steel is equal to the Concrete. @JuanP - as evidenced by the confusion expressed in this thread, an in-depth tutorial on the usage / workflow of Materials is desperately needed. This is a huge new feature, and the 2m31s video linked from the 2021 User Manual to VwUniv barely even scratches the surface. Thanks. Edited September 19, 2020 by rDesign 3 Quote Link to comment
0 _c_ Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 16 hours ago, rDesign said: I am really confused by this as well: In the Concrete Reinforced Precast MT (UK, also US) posted above, the Steel Rebar % is at 100% of the Material volume, equal to the volume of Concrete. An equal ratio of Concrete to Rebar seems a little high to me... This is bug-filed. 2 Quote Link to comment
0 Tom Klaber Posted September 22, 2020 Author Share Posted September 22, 2020 @Art V @Tom W. If we look at wall sections, there is no material in our office that we show as different hatches in different cuts. We have made them the same. In my option a wall section is a diagram and the hatches have a KEY that tells you what the material is. We seldom would want to try and get a hatch to accurately display geometry. For repeated elements like studs that would show up in a plan cut but not a section cut, we draw those separately. So the ability to separate plan cuts from section cut fills is not high on my list personally. 2 Quote Link to comment
0 Tom Klaber Posted September 22, 2020 Author Share Posted September 22, 2020 @Art V I think it works if you have a 12"x12"x12" mass of of the material - 1 cubic foot - the material take off would be just the percentage times that cube. So if you have 100% rebar and 100% concrete - then the material take off will be one cubic foot of concrete and one cubic foot of steel. So it is just a spread sheet and you get to set your own values. I rather like this compared to VW throwing up error and demanding 100%. I picture the stair tool that is so worried about code that it will not let me design a stair. Quote Link to comment
0 line-weight Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 55 minutes ago, Tom Klaber said: @Art V @Tom W. If we look at wall sections, there is no material in our office that we show as different hatches in different cuts. We have made them the same. In my option a wall section is a diagram and the hatches have a KEY that tells you what the material is. We seldom would want to try and get a hatch to accurately display geometry. For repeated elements like studs that would show up in a plan cut but not a section cut, we draw those separately. So the ability to separate plan cuts from section cut fills is not high on my list personally. I'd say I tend to agree with this. It would however be useful if certain materials could hatch parallel to their orientation - primary example being sheet materials like plywood. 2 Quote Link to comment
0 zoomer Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 It took a while to understand what your problem is. I don't deal much with SLVPs. But now I realized. I often overwrite my Glass Class for Elevations to change my RW transparent Glass to an opaque Glass like RW Material. So I would also need : Materials should be able to be overwritten in VPs ! So for your Plan vs Section vs 90° Sections, replace Material 1 linear view with Material 2 head view and such .... 1 Quote Link to comment
0 _c_ Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 (edited) The coercion of the fill has to go. It causes duplication anywhere I look. Take another example: I wish to use a reinforced concrete and download the material from the UK library. I am enthusiastic about the shipped library, it has bucketloads of data that I can use out of the box. That's the thing I care of. Data. But I work in Germany and must adapt the displayed hatch to our standards, keeping that data. BTW, the employed hatch in all concrete materials (Concrete Precast Reinforced and derivates) is far too large for 1:50, can someone from UK distribution look into this and eventually file a bug report? @shorter @Tamsin Slatter This is how it looks like: I need to use another hatch because this is not according to our praxis. The screenshot below comes from a degree in the University of München, Prof. Borrmann, who is among the BIM Titans in Germany, Chair of Computational Modeling and Simulation. This degree is dedicated to generated plans and sections, go figure. A bit old but very interesting. https://publications.cms.bgu.tum.de/theses/fiermonte_2013_obergriesser.pdf For my hatch I'll go for the old norm because is very much present in the praxis. So I duplicate the hatch of the concrete part in the the compound material to show as needed and rename it. I end up with: Concrete 3500psi (UK) MT-not reinforced Concrete 3500psi (UK) MT-as reinforced, which is wrong, this is actually not reinforced just to show a correct fill in the compound material for reinforced. Edited September 23, 2020 by _c_ fixed rebars % Quote Link to comment
0 _c_ Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 So what I displayed was the sectioned representation. And now I realise that I need also the same but not sectioned. I must duplicate them. Oh, no I forgot. I also need them from above: Quote Link to comment
0 _c_ Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Now I want to do some quantity take off by material. Database criteria doesn't support wild cards, so I end up with something like that: This is viewed in the criteria bar: Now I realise that I am going fast towards the 256 characters limit for the criteria string. I have to change the names of my materials, make them shorter: Names don't update in the criteria. Serious source of errors: And there are those cases where I simply removed the material because I couldn't edit the fill and couldn't bear to duplicate the materials any longer. And all these items won't list in my quantity take offs. So I introduced a pretty worrisome source of error. Quote Link to comment
0 shorter Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, _c_ said: The coercion of the fill has to go. It causes duplication anywhere I look. Take another example: I wish to use a reinforced concrete and download the material from the UK library. I am enthusiastic about the shipped library, it has bucketloads of data that I can use out of the box. That's the thing I care of. Data. But I work in Germany and must adapt the displayed hatch to our standards, keeping that data. BTW, the employed hatch in all concrete materials (Concrete Precast Reinforced and derivates) is far too large for 1:50, can someone from UK distribution look into this and eventually file a bug report? @shorter @Tamsin Slatter This is how it looks like: I need to use another hatch because this is not according to our praxis. The screenshot below comes from a degree in the University of München, Prof. Borrmann, who is among the BIM Titans in Germany, Chair of Computational Modeling and Simulation. This degree is dedicated to generated plans and sections, go figure. A bit old but very interesting. https://publications.cms.bgu.tum.de/theses/fiermonte_2013_obergriesser.pdf For my hatch I'll go for the old norm because is very much present in the praxis. So I duplicate the hatch of the concrete part in the the compound material to show as needed and rename it. I end up with: Concrete 3500psi (UK) MT-not reinforced Concrete 3500psi (UK) MT-as reinforced, which is wrong, this is actually not reinforced just to show a correct fill in the compound material for reinforced. oh I wish the U.K. were more dictatorial when it came to drawing graphics. U.K. architects though will never accept being told how their drawing should look so there is no standard in the U.K. for hatching anymore. There used to be a BS which I can dig out but the only standards we seem to care about about at the moment is naming files obtusely. perhaps with ISO19650 there might be some alignment to the DIN standard. Edited September 23, 2020 by shorter Quote Link to comment
0 _c_ Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 (edited) Ha ha! You old dictator. Steven, what I pointed for you was that the shipped hatch for the concrete stuff is useless. Give it a check. Unregarded eventual standards. Steven, delete my name from your post. I had enough harassment in the past. _c_ is good. Edited September 23, 2020 by _c_ Quote Link to comment
0 shorter Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 I will take a look although tbh the first thing I do is delete the hatches that ship with VW and use my own. They have to be renamed anyway so easier to have a set that are compliant. Quote Link to comment
0 line-weight Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 speaking as a UK architect - I'd be quite happy to have it dictated to me and others (including product manufacturers/suppliers) which hatches should be used for what! It would save us all a lot of time figuring out what's what on construction drawings. Quote Link to comment
0 Christiaan Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Same here. 1 Quote Link to comment
0 _c_ Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 8 minutes ago, line-weight said: speaking as a UK architect - I'd be quite happy to have it dictated to me and others (including product manufacturers/suppliers) which hatches should be used for what! It would save us all a lot of time figuring out what's what on construction drawings. That's what drawing STANDARDS are for: establish a common language. If I invent my own language I just don't communicate fast enough, because I permanently need to clarify, somehow, what I mean. 1 Quote Link to comment
0 Christiaan Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 The UK has BS 1192-3:1987 (superseded and very slim pickings in terms of hatches) and BS 8541-2:2011 (not seen what it has by way of hatches) and there's nothing in ISO19650 about hatches. Quote Link to comment
0 _c_ Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 For what is worth, it should be the ISO 128-50 for all of us. 1 Quote Link to comment
0 Hans-Olav Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 - or this one: https://www.iso.org/standard/69130.html 1 Quote Link to comment
0 _c_ Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 (edited) Hans-Olav, there is a specific publication just for the hatches: ISO 128-50 https://www.iso.org/standard/24240.html 🙄 Edit: no, you are right, they are retiring it. Edit again: in Germany it is valid: https://www.beuth.de/de/norm/din-iso-128-50/46948186 Edited September 23, 2020 by _c_ 2 Quote Link to comment
0 shorter Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 That’s why I go around configuring architects cad systems...the practice controls the standards and staff are not allowed to change anything. Where an office does not have any we give them ours so now around 100 or so practices draw like I do! 1 Quote Link to comment
Question
Tom Klaber
Material currently seems to controls fill and texture. Material should also control cut fill.
Link to comment
Top Posters For This Question
29
16
11
9
Popular Days
Sep 23
24
Sep 30
18
Sep 19
14
Sep 18
10
Top Posters For This Question
_c_ 29 posts
Art V 16 posts
Tom Klaber 11 posts
elepp 9 posts
Popular Days
Sep 23 2020
24 posts
Sep 30 2020
18 posts
Sep 19 2020
14 posts
Sep 18 2020
10 posts
Popular Posts
Tom Klaber
Material currently seems to controls fill and texture. Material should also control cut fill.
_c_
Given that there should be the option NOT to have attributes coerced into the Material, should a cut plane interface be developed, please mind that in many parts of the world architects use semantical
E|FA
I appreciate your explanations in this thread, but while it might not seem complex to VW employees who have been working on these features for a long time, it is all very new to users, the help files
Posted Images
113 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
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.