Jump to content

Construction Documents from a 3D Model - How much information to model?


Recommended Posts

Hi all, this is a question for other architects and residential designers who model in 3D.

 

How much detail do you put into a 3D model and how does that transition to your contract documents? I suppose one could spend quite a lot of time building a model 'stick by stick', as it were, so that when you create section and detail viewports, your viewports are showing an accurate representation of what's to be built. However if one is using wall, slab and roof styles, the detail and section viewports will show section outlines without much detailed information. In the past this is what I've done and then on my sheets, I go in and add to the sections and details in 'Edit Viewport - Annotation', using the detail or section viewport as a base to start from. So, I'll add dimensional lumber, window/door heads, flashings, etc. I suppose if one were modelling in true BIM, everything would be accurate and there'd be no need to add anything to details and sections other than notes. For residential projects, I'm not sure this would be time well spent as it seems to me that the time spent modelling to this degree would be a money losing proposition. That may be an assumption based on my own level of proficiency with 3D modelling. 

 

If you model in 3D, how far do you take it? Do you model absolutely everything - put lots of work in to the front end to save time (hopefully) in contract document production? Or do you model for the 3D form to convey the necessary information for plans, elevations and basic overall building sections and then build up larger scale, detail sections similar to how they're done in a 2D workflow?

 

I'd love to hear from those in the industry for what works for you and if you've found a 'sweet spot' in your work flow. Transitioning from a 2D workflow (AutoCAD) to a 3D workflow presents all sorts of challenges but I'm hoping to be able to become efficient enough with Vectorworks to be able to say goodbye to my annual AutoCAD subscription for good.

 

Thanks in advance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

@MaltbyDesign If you are anything like me then as you get better at modelling then you'll model more. I find though that for me the more detailed modelling is generally not to produce construction detail, rather more to get quick elevations and/or presentation drawings. The 3d details can really help  when you have a tricky building junction to resolve.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

@Boh I can see that as being a benefit. Right now I'm working on an addition to an existing house and am trying to draw things in a way where more detail is shown on the addition so that it graphically stands out from the existing while still showing the existing accurately. I think, like you, I see the modelling as a tool to quickly and accurately generate elevations, overall sections and plans for both presentation and contract documents. I suspect I can be more efficient with my time by generating details in 2D.

Link to comment

Quick tip on new v extg on elevations you might find useful is for hidden line views if you include a nested hatch in the textures used on NEW walls and roofs and no nested hatch on EXTG walls and roofs.

 

In hidden line views the extg walls and roofs will display white with no hatch and the new ones will stand out with a hatch.

 

I have developed new and extg textures for this purpose.  

 

cheers

  • Like 2
Link to comment

As I think I posted in one of the linked threads - I find 3d useful for working out tricky construction details. Some junctions I'll model in a fair bit of 3d detail (and pull this through to construction drawing viewports) and others I'll model in less detail and do more work in 2d annotations.

 

However... you'll already have realised that if you model only certain bits of the building in "buildup detail" (by which I mean stuff inside walls etc, that you only see in section/plan and not in elevation) you can end up with the problem that your plans and sections look inconsistent because of the varying levels of details.

 

Then there are various strategies - simply choose not to show much detail on general sections/elevations ... maybe by excluding certain classes, or using merged sections, although neither of those approaches are without issues ... or, just decide to model enough "buildup detail" to make your plans/sections look consistent (I more often end up going this route).

 

I imagine the best approach depends very much on the type of project. I mostly do smallish things (like you often alterations/extensions) so it's not too tedious to draw in every stud in every timber stud wall, for example. In fact it can often be done more quickly than you think. Only needs to be as accurate/detailed as your plans and sections call for, and in that respect isn't necessarily all that different to many 2d workflows.

 

I'm certainly interested to see how others tackle this though.

 

 

Edited by line-weight
  • Like 1
Link to comment

@line-weight Interesting. When I draw in 2D (AutoCAD) I tend to draw building sections with quite a lot of detail where I need it. Window and door heads, sills, wall/roof connections, parapets, etc. Then it's just a matter of drawing them only once in the context of the overall building assembly and then referencing to a different sheet at a larger scale and adding text. If I make changes to the main section, those are them reflected on the details as well. After 30+ years of drawing in 2D, I've developed a nice mix of brevity and information in my drawings that, I think work well. Now with 3D, I'd like to try and find that sweet spot where a drawing, or model, is developed to show enough information to be usable for contract documents. 

 

If you are building a model stick by stick, do you use storeys? Or just stick to Design Layers? Also, I assume that a lot of your drawing information is put on a large number of classes that act as containers for the various parts of the assembly (Structural wall framing, floor framing, wall sheathing, finishes, etc.). 

Link to comment

I guess anyone who does construction drawings knows there's a bit of an art in conveying all the necessary info in the most efficient manner possible (ie as few drawing sheets and as few drawing hours as you can get away with). Not sure I have necessarily found the sweet spot in a 3d workflow yet... but I can tell you I wouldn't go back to 2d now.

 

I don't bother with storeys at present. I tend to put one building storey per design layer. In the end that tends to be mainly about what's convenient for isolating chunks of the building for viewing/editing purposes than anything else.

 

I do have quite a large no of classes - "object" classes and "material" classes. Again, these boil down to what makes it easy to isolate different parts of the building.

 

Increasingly I'm finding it's a good strategy to model as it per construction sequence. So I have "saved views" with visibilities set up that let me see primary structural frame only, primary & secondary structure, structure with insulation, external cladding on/off and so on. In some cases it might help to have several sequential layers of cladding build-up. I tend to make it a bit different for each building, depending on what's useful.

 

In theory I have everything in an "object class" and also in a "material class". So, a main timber frame panel might be in a "structure" class and then all its component bits are in a "rough timber" class or something like that. In practice I'm finding I get a bit lazy about the "object" classes and mostly get away with it. Because actually once you've classified something as a material, that tends to correlate with its function and when it appears in the construction sequence.

 

I feel like I am re-inventing the wheel with a lot of this stuff but VW has no defined way of doing things so you are kind of on your own when it comes to developing a system for organising your drawings.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

@line-weight Thanks for the additional detail. I'm working on a small renovation/addition right now and decided to bite the bullet and do the whole project in 3D in Vectorworks. I could be finished it if I were drawing in 2D with AutoCAD, but am determined to use this as a learning experience and hopefully become confident enough to take the jump to 3D for all my future projects. I don't mind 'donating' some of my time to learn the process on a real project. Part of the reason for this post was to explore what others are doing and if they've found that 'sweet spot' in efficiency. It sounds like we're all forging paths that work best for us.

 

I tried Storeys on this project, just to try and get my head around it. I'm not sure it makes total sense for small residential projects but I think it could be useful for larger projects. The jury is still out on it, though. 

 

Because i'm working on an addition/renovation to an existing home, I'm finding classes to be quite useful. Particularly in controlling visibilities. They are much the same as layers in AutoCAD in that regard. 

 

I do like the fact that I can have a Zoom meeting with the client and rather than show just flat elevations and plans, I can show them the building in 3D. I think it helps them to understand it better than just plans and elevations do. So this saves me having to do a quick sketchup model when clients are having trouble visualizing things in 2D.

Link to comment

@MaltbyDesign “ I could be finished it if I were drawing in 2D with AutoCAD, but am determined to use this as a learning experience and hopefully become confident enough to take the jump to 3D for all my future projects.

 

You will , or should, eventually come to the realization that 3d modeling every project is the way to go, full stop.

A pretty tight model goes a long way....not just for procuring working drawings, etc, but also as a fabulous communication tool for your client. Once you have spent a little time creating a a decent 3d model you will have the ingredients to quickly and fairly painlessly create elevations, sections ,etc automatically.

Another item, which I believe line-weight pointed out, is that it really, really helps to resolve any design conflicts as opposed to doing so in the field, when a project is under construction.  That can be very costly.  
 

I recently designed a fairly simple, contemporary Guesthouse, or secondary dwelling as they are also called, with a building footprint of 28’x28’.  Doesn’t take up too much room on a drawing sheet. Wouldn’t appear too exciting to look at in plan view.

All well and good to show a client the flat floor plan, for general design content, but.....a plan view, no matter how nice it appears on a page, would never in a million years convey this to a client, regarding their Guesthouse.

 

https://www.kskeys.com/guesthouse

 

So......I rest my case pertaining to 3d Modeling a project.:-)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Yeah the first couple of projects will be painful and slow. After that you'll start to see the benefits. The joy of being able to move a section line, and have the section regenerate in the click of a button (in theory at least) rather than spending half an hour manually adjusting every single line.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment

That's what I'd describe as a "GA" section - an overview of the building and a kind of index to the detailed drawings necessary for construction. For example... the exact details at roof eaves. The question is whether you do those larger-scale drawings purely in 2d, or do you annotate on top of sections from the 3d model? This is the tricky bit to work out.

Edited by line-weight
Link to comment

Hi @MaltbyDesign yes the cladding/siding is the outermost wall component. The next component in is 'battens' but it's assigned to a 'cavity' class that I turn off.

Yes the flashing is an Extrude Along Path. I have the profile saved as a 'blue' symbol specifically for use with the plinth wall style that the timber framed wall sits on.

I used a wall hole component symbol to put the chamfer on the red bricks. So the plinth wall style, the flashing profile symbol + the chamfer cut-out symbol all live together in my favourites for use together. This wall + the twin stud wall that sits on top I intend using on a few different projects.

The strip foundation is a third wall

1672340354_Screenshot2021-03-11at17_22_17.thumb.png.1a172b2a0c5bbc7af987aa98fe82c9f7.png

  • Like 4
Link to comment

@Tom W. I find it easily gets a bit messy in top-plan view when you have several walls stacked on top of each other like that. I don't mean in viewports because I don't really use top-plan for sheet layer vieports any more (I use horizontal sections) but I do often flip to top-plan in design layer while I am editing/working on stuff because that tends to be the easiest way to quickly work on wall layouts. But when there are several walls on to of each other it all becomes a bit of a jumble. Do you have a good strategy for dealing with that? Do you put the "plinth" and foundation strip on a different design layer for example?

Link to comment

Hi @MaltbyDesign yes the brick 'cladding' is the outer component of the plinth wall. See this thread for using wall hole component symbols for 'sculpting' walls:

My symbol just cuts a chamfer out of the front top edge of the wall.

 

23 minutes ago, line-weight said:

@Tom W. I find it easily gets a bit messy in top-plan view when you have several walls stacked on top of each other like that. I don't mean in viewports because I don't really use top-plan for sheet layer vieports any more (I use horizontal sections) but I do often flip to top-plan in design layer while I am editing/working on stuff because that tends to be the easiest way to quickly work on wall layouts. But when there are several walls on to of each other it all becomes a bit of a jumble. Do you have a good strategy for dealing with that? Do you put the "plinth" and foundation strip on a different design layer for example?

Yes all three walls are on different design layers but that was more to set up their respective elevations so they automatically stack on top of each other correctly when working in Top/Plan.

I have to say I am quite new to this + whilst after months of chipping away at it feel I've begun to get a fairly good grasp of how it all works I've only completed a couple of smallish models so far so haven't had much experience of how all this works in practise, only in theory...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

Yes all three walls are on different design layers but that was more to set up their respective elevations so they automatically stack on top of each other correctly when working in Top/Plan.

I have to say I am quite new to this + whilst after months of chipping away at it feel I've begun to get a fairly good grasp of how it all works I've only completed a couple of smallish models so far so haven't had much experience of how all this works in practise, only in theory...

 

Sure... it's useful to see others going through the process so it would be great if you give us updates on how you get on.

 

The potential issue with putting the walls on different layers is whether that makes it difficult to edit them, for example if at some point you want to shift the wall by 100mm, do you have to go through and do each wall on each layer individually, and have some kind of reference to snap them all to.

 

This is the kind of thing that would be made much easier if walls could have vertical "layers" as well as component layers, so you could shift the whole thing as one object.

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
Reply to this topic...

×   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...