Stair PIO - serious design flaw

[Petri Sakkinen]

I have just realised that changing the WIDTH of a 'straight stair with landing' changes the LENGTH of the landing.

Hello? Has the person behind the PIO ever designed stairs? The landing length should of course be user-defined, perhaps prompting the correct convenient length.

This, as all architects surely know, is based on the step length of the stair in question - 2 risers + 1 tread - so that similar steps take your foot to the end of the landing and the left-right rhythm is kept, ie. if you stepped on the landing with left foot, you proceed with right foot. OK, it is not a major problem if the rhythm changes if you take at least three steps on the landing.

Anyway: STAIR WIDTH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LANDING LENGTH!!!!!!

Right - back to using one's own stair PIO - but one womders why one spent the money to buy VWA in the first place.

[Matthew Giampapa]

I believe that out stair PIO has worked like this for over 2 years. If it is a major problem, I would suggest you use 2 straight stairs in conjunction with a floor object to give you the additional flexibility you desire.

I will also enter a wish list item for you to have an additional configuration option added in the future.

Matthew GiampapaNNA Technical Support

[Petri Sakkinen]

Matthew,

It may well have worked that way - I just haven't used much it because I found it rather disappointing. Thus, I wrote my own, which on the other hand is much more limited.

I also made some improvements to the standard issue so that it was more useful - and if the NNA PIOs would not be protected, I would do it again.

Anyway, this PIO behaviour is idiotic and, unfortunately, symptomatic. Many add-ons are rather half-hearted, looking good in trade shows and demonstrations, but failing miserably in real work.

Having spent the money, I now obviously have to spend the time as well - either to more manual labour or to improve my own PIO.

[Matthew Giampapa]

Peter and Chris,

We are certainly open to improving all of our PIOs.

Lets get a list together of things you would like to see the stair object do.

So far we have...-User configurable landings-More intelligent predefined landing lengths based on step configuration-Support for curved stairs, and user defined curves

As for locking the objects, that is more of a policy issue. I'll do what I can to voice your disappointment about this.

Matthew GiampapaNNA Technical Support

[ 04-20-2002: Message edited by: Matthew Giampapa ]

[Petri Sakkinen]

Let's add optional step on the top level to the wish list. (One of the modifications I made to the old PIO was to add a 3D locus to the top level 'theoretical' step edge. At least made it easier to figure out where the slab should go. Also, there were some outright bugs that I fixed: if I remember correctly, the hand rails were all over the place.)

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Matthew Giampapa:[QB]Peter and Chris,

So far we have...-User configurable landings-More intelligent predefined landing lengths based on step configuration-Support for curved stairs, and user defined curves

Matthew;I don't think that "predefined" landing lengths is the answer. The user should be able to specify any length landing. Yes there are Code defined minimum lengths, but let us choose what length to use and let us deal with Code issues and functionality issues.

It would also be nice to be able to specify where the 2d stair break occurs. Sometimes I want it to occur at a lower elevation so that I can show detail information under the stairs, such as a closet, storage space or wine cellar.

Thanks for your help

[Petri Sakkinen]

...especially as 'Code' can mean anything in the 85 (or whatever) countries VW is used in.

However, the principle I elaborated on is, I think, rather widely used and promoted in at least the two books on stair design I happen to own. (Not to mention my professors at the Helsinki University of Technology in the 70s...)

[Davide]

The stair landing not user-defined is the main reason why I don't use that otherwise very powerful tool. Handrail too should continue around the landing and or pass the stairs.

It?s very easy to set up a PIO that really works for an industry:

Take a few architectural projects already done (better if hand drafted) by any architect in that area; look at the stairs. Use VW Architect and try to redraft the same stair (same sizes for everything, railings graphics (round corners), break line where needed, appropriate line weight controls. You?ll find out how much more customizable that tool needs to be to exactly copy those 2-3 stairs.

[jfmarch]

In the US, most bilding codes require the landing depth to be at least equal to the width of the stairs. Since most stair designs are for code required egress, a 36" or 44" stair requires a 36" or 44" deep landing, including railings. Yes the PIO would be better if the user defined the landing, but for now its an ok tool to use. I've always checked the landing when I select one, its not a big deal...

[Petri Sakkinen]

The point here is primarily about straight stairs with landing - and the length of the latter. In U-shapes, the landing width indeed normally is the same as stair width (although even then, I tend to be a bit more generous - even 200mm makes quite a difference.)

Anyway, I politely disagree with your statement that stairs should only be designed to comply with a standard or a code - to me, they are a key element in the spatial experience. I believe my great compatriote Alvar Aalto would agree - his stairs are wonderful experiences!

Well, maybe you don't subscribe to the pragmatic ideology, either - but the current PIO is based on this kind of thinking.

[Peter Huggins]

Petri,

The stair object contains two parameters (Offset 1, Offset 2) which can be used to change the length of the landing. While these parameters are normally used on "double-back" stairs, they seem to work fine on a straight stair. You cannot make the landing length less than the width (which here wouldn't meet code anyway), but it can be any length, I believe. Does that solve your problem?

[Petri Sakkinen]

Tried that, but because, apart from measuring, there is no way to know what the PIO thinks the landing should be, I didn't really get anywhere. Also, values less than zero are not accepted - the stair in question is almost 3 metres wide but the landing definitely should not be anything like that, rather, a '2 step' landing (not being a 'ceremonial' stair.)

Also, using two single stairs is awkward because there is no numeric feedback from the PIO.

[jnr]

How about looking at Archicad's stair tool for a few cues? It has signifcantly better options and flexibility. If they are stealing your ideas why not steal theirs? I have to agree. Whoever engineered the stair tool has never built one or designed a modern staircase... And, it doesn't autoclass....

[Ariel]

Just to add to the Stair PIO improvements wishlist: how about having an option for the stairs to run through multiple floors. I was once doing a model of a multi-storey building and this feature would have been a great help.

Ariel

[Marc D.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jfmarch:

In the US, most bilding codes require the landing depth to be at least equal to the width of the stairs. [...]Yes the PIO would be better if the user defined the landing, but for now its an ok tool to use. I've always checked the landing when I select one, its not a big deal...

---

That's nice, but I'm working with renovations and rebuilds and the stairs don't always meet the code. Thanks to all for letting me determine that I can't do what I need to do with Vectorworks, and that I now have to discover how to write my own PIO. I note that this discussion is over a year old. I just got VW 10, and the thing is still broken. I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't have purchased Revit instead...