Multi-storey building all in one storey - would this work?

[zoomer]

Could be, as I usually have all PIOs by Components.

[Tom W.]

Me too.

[line-weight]

Hm, I have walls by component too, but it's greyed out nonetheless.

[Tom W.]

But does your wall actually have a component or components specified in its settings? Or is it just a single thickness wall whose thickness is determined by the wall rather than by the component/s?

 

The other thing I've realised you can do to get rid of the pesky lines is to the change map type from auto-align plane to something else then back again...

[line-weight]

Yes, it's a two component wall, using a wall style.

 

Turned out it was because I didn't actually have a texture assigned to either of those components. When I did that, the options became editable. And ticking the "use world Z" box did make the line go away as you suggest. It doesn't come back when I then untick the box.

[Christiaan]

I submitted a bug on this issue recently and then found a workaround: I recreated the viewport from scratch. The file started in v2019, was converted to v2020 and then v2021, so in this particular instance I think the problem probably stemmed from v2020.

 

They're an infuriating thing because there seems to be so many things that can cause them. Most often I find they're valid errors of misalignment but all too often they're inexplicable, like the one you've just come across.

 

If you're working on a building that doesn't have many right angles, as I currently am, you have to be extremely careful to make sure the angles of stacked walls match exactly, using the highest decimal precision for angle and length.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Christiaan

[line-weight]

Not sure it can be blamed on conversion from earlier version - the drawing I'm working on at the moment I started completely fresh in 2021.

 

I'm not quite sure yet, but I think that when these lines show up in my OpenGL views, they don't necessarily also appear in my hidden line viewports.

[Christiaan]

7 minutes ago, line-weight said:

I'm not quite sure yet, but I think that when these lines show up in my OpenGL views, they don't necessarily also appear in my hidden line viewports.

 

Yes, that's another little nuance.

 

I have a wishlist item in for this, although we'll see how Metal deals with it instead: VE-95434.

 

Edit: Dave Donley was looking into this. Last he said to me was "No this did no go into 2016. We will consider this for the next version!"

Edited May 27, 2021 by Christiaan

[Tom W.]

I too have a new 2021 file. Building completely square. Walls all properly aligned. Lines between walls on different floors in OpenGL on design layer appear seemingly completely randomly. I remove them as I see them so are gone by the time I get to VP stage. Sometimes enabling 'Use World Z' removes them there + then. Sometimes I have to enable it then disable it to get the line to disappear. Also changing the map type to something else then back again gets rid of them.

[drelARCH]

by using command move: cmd/ctrl+m and entering x:0, y:0 you reset wall and unwanted line should be gone...not sure if it help in your case @line-weight but I just recalled advice of @Matt Panzer from other post.

 

I know this doesn't fix cause of such behaviour but only get rid off resulting errors...

[line-weight]

23 minutes ago, drelARCH said:

by using command move: cmd/ctrl+m and entering x:0, y:0 you reset wall and unwanted line should be gone...not sure if it help in your case @line-weight but I just recalled advice of @Matt Panzer from other post.

 

I know this doesn't fix cause of such behaviour but only get rid off resulting errors...

 

I just tried this - but without success.

[zoomer]

On 5/24/2021 at 5:55 PM, line-weight said:

would it work to just have one, overall storey? It would contain all the design layers, and I would set up all the levels I wanted as "default story levels". So I'd have one named FFL-1st, one named FFL-2nd, and so on. And then any element in any layer could relate to any of these levels.

 

 

That is a nice idea and would theoretically work.

Just that it would not be much fun to

a) create all these levels in VW's environment and

b) to assign them to your PIOs and Components from VW's dialogs 

[zoomer]

On 5/24/2021 at 5:55 PM, line-weight said:

Then I would be able to set wall tops and bottoms relative to my levels, rather than working out relative to the project zero.

 

But I think you would then need PIO Style duplicates for each Story (?)

[line-weight]

Well, I have a couple of projects that I set up this way, and it doesn't seem to have caused me any major problems, except that sometimes if I haven't looked at one of the projects for a while, I forget how it's set up and some strange things happen that confuse me for a short time.

 

The question is whether it brings any particular advantages, and I think the advantages are a bit limited because not many objects can actually use 'levels' in the end.

 

One of those projects is hopefully soon going to move to a construction drawings stage (after months and months stuck in the UK planning system thatnks to post-covid chaos) and then I'll be able to see if it helps me with that stage of drawings (where I find that referring things to datums can help keep things under control).

[line-weight]

4 hours ago, zoomer said:

 

But I think you would then need PIO Style duplicates for each Story (?)

no, I don't think so.

(I assume you mean for each storey of my building, rather than each VW 'storey' because the whole point is that there is only one VW 'storey')

Here's the same wall style which I've used on two different storeys of the building, and in each case its top and bottom bounds are controlled by levels that I've set up. In this case finished floor levels and finished ceiling levels.

 

 

Another thing I've found it a bit useful for, is that I have set levels that are "top of joist" and "bottom of joist" for timber floors. Then I make a "flooring" slab on top of the joists and a "ceiling slab" underneath whose elevations are set relative to the top or bottom of the joists. The flooring and ceiling buildups can be independent of each other and can each have multiple components. (In fact I've even used "slabs" for the joists themselves in some cases). Then the whole thing can be adjusted just by changing the top and bottom of joist levels, either to make the joists deeper or move the floor up or down. To what extent this is actually useful in general use, I'm yet to decide, but it's kind of satisfying to set it up like that, somehow.

 

 

What's kind of stupid is that you can't set doors and windows relative to "levels".

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by line-weight

[line-weight]

Anyway, here's what my levels setup looks like so far for each of those two projects that I'm trying the "all in one storey" approach on.

 

[zoomer]

Yes, you can overwrite your Hight's of Styles and they will be kept after Style changes

since VW 20??

 

Each time I get a new project I need long time to decide if Story setup or Layer Setup and

such things when I get first sketches.

Mostly I see many different height levels between up to 5 Stories and try to estimate or bet

what will be more effective. Design changes from clients always showed I decide wrong.

I usually use Story Setup anyway and do the "irregular" Levels by special Story Levels.

To keep manual PIO overwriting of Top/Bottoms to a minimum.

It is mostly the pre estimation of what might possibly change in design that makes it

successful in the end.

[Tom W.]

@line-weight thank you for reminding me of this thread.

 

So do you not use any Story Layers...?:

 

 

I think this is what I remain slightly unclear about in my file (the first to incorporate Stories): where to have standard Design Layers + where to have Story Layers. The file started off as a layer bound set-up with all my standard design layers then I added stories midway through, really only to utilise the enhanced Elevation Benchmark functionality discussed elsewhere. So I had existing layers that I converted into story layers because they represented critical elevations like top of subfloor etc. But in your setup would you have just left them as design layers + created a separate story level for that elevation...?

 

This is a single story building so all I'm really interested in using stories for is 1) using Elev BMs + 2) setting levels I can bind objects to without requiring a dedicated design layer for them.

[line-weight]

@Tom W. when you say "storey layers" do you mean "storey levels"?

 

My setup is that I have one storey - and any design layers containing geometry that wants to take advantage of storey levels are contained within that storey.

 

(Possibly I could just put all design layers in that storey - I don't think that would cause anything bad to happen)

 

A typical list of design layers for me is foundations, ground floor (existing), ground floor (proposed), first floor (existing), first floor (propsed), roof, external landscaping, etc etc. I'd just put all of these in the VW "storey". For my purposes I don't use it as a storey, just a container to allow me to access "storey levels".

 

Then I set up my various "storey levels". As you can see from the screenshots they are typically things like FFLs, FCLs, structural setting-out levels, and anything else that might be useful.

 

I use those storey levels mainly for the elevation benchmarks that I use quite liberally on section viewports.

 

I do also sometimes use them for binding things like wall components to. But note that you can still use design layer elevations to bind relative to (in addition to storey levels).

 

So if I understand correctly what you've done, then no I don't think you needed to do anything other than set up a "storey", put your design layers into* that storey, then set up whatever storey levels you like. Then where you have objects already bounded relative to layer elevations, you could jsut leave them as-is, or choose to switch to binding them to storey levels instead, if more convenient.

 

As I probably said somewhere up the thread, I quite like giving all of my design layers an elevation of zero (for ease of copy and paste-in-place) in which case when I want to bind things relative to an upper floor level, I use the appropriate storey level. But this system would not be efficient for projects with multiple repeating storeys.

 

The other limitation (compared to layer elevations) is that not all objects can have their elevation linked to a storey level. I wish they could be - would make things like setting the height of lightswitches on a first floor a bit smoother.

 

*never quite sure what the right terminology is: is a design layer "within" a storey or just assigned to a storey? Probably doesn't matter but I remember when I first was trying to get my head around storeys it took a while to understand their relationship to design layers.

[line-weight]

By way of illustration, here are the design layer & storey level setups for drawing I'm currently working on.

 

NB this slightly contradicts what I said above about all DLs having zero elevation. The first floor layers are given the elevation of the first floor FFL. That's for "historical reasons" and if setting the file up from fresh I'd probably not do that.

 

This particular project involves some planning restrictions that mean a demolished and re-constructed bit of the building has to replicate the existing. Storey levels (and associated benchmarks) have been quite useful in keeping control of this, because I can show various reference levels on the "as existing" and "as proposed" elevations and sections and make sure everything is in the right place.

 

(In fact I am just embarking on the rather painful process of making some slightly complicated setting-out drawings on this basis. Part of the reason you have got an extensive answer to your question is that it provides a convenient procrastination activity.)

 

 

 

[Tom W.]

3 minutes ago, line-weight said:

when you say "storey layers" do you mean "storey levels"?

 

No I meant 'story layers' (or 'layer levels'?) as designated by the stacked layers icon in the stories preview pane:

 

I was thinking that your set-up according to those earlier screenshots seemed to include story levels only ('layerless levels') + no story layers. But in your new post I can see from the Design Layer tab that you have layers which are 'within' or 'assigned' to a story (as you say) + yet they don't show up as story layers in the Stories tab... So assigning a design layer to a story via the drop-down in the 'Story' column of the Design Layers tab gives objects on those layers access to the story levels right? But that's different to a 'story layer' created within the story settings + designated with the stacked layers symbol?

 

This is what I've got in my file:

 

So I've got four 'story layers' plus 23 'normal' layers, none of which have I 'attached' to the story yet...

 

In the notes I made ages ago when I first looked at stories it says that each story must contain at least one story layer but that doesn't seem to be the case in your set-up?

 

[line-weight]

Ah right. Yes, this is bringing back memories of things that I found very confusing when I was first trying them out, but I can't now remember exactly the details.

 

Is it something to do with the difference between a "level" and a "level type"? Because in my setup I think I only use "level types" and disregard what happens to levels that are intended to repeat in multiple stories.

 

I think I must have "layerless levels" but where is it that you make the choice between a layerless level and a story level?

 

If it's any help, below are the instructions I wrote myself a few years back for setting up new files. They seem to work. I had to write these for myself because the whole thing is so confusing.

 

Storeys & levels

Currently testing: have one ‘general storey’ and all levels assigned to this

This means “level” and “level type” are in effect the same thing, because there will only be one instance of each level type

New file setup:

First step for new file - go to organisation dialogue, stories tab, click “default storey levels” button and delete all

Now do same clicking on “level types” button and deleting all

This makes clean start so only newly created desired levels are visible.

Create a new storey called “general” and assign any relevant layers to it.**

Give that storey elevation = 0**

Leave Layer Name Prefix/Suffix box as it is - can’t make it blank. Is not relevant if using only one instance of each level type.**

**(assuming using one-storey setup)

Make a new level:

To make a new level, go to organisation dialogue, stories tab. Highlight relevant storey, click “edit”

Brings up “edit storey” dialogue, click “new level”

Invites choice of an existing “level type” via dropdown, can use an existing type, or choose “new level type” within dropdown

Allows naming of new level type

Then specify elevation (don’t tick ‘create layer’)

*tick “use elevation benchmark” (what does this actually do? Chooses benchmark style to use by default? This doesn’t seem to happen)

Will appear in the list of levels in the “edit storey” dialogue, need to add tick against it to make active (must do this before exiting dialogue or it simply disappears!)

NB there can only be one instance of “level type” per storey (therefore per file, if all levels assigned to one storey)

Change level name:

go to organisation dialogue, stories tab, “level types” button

Highlight and edit level type name as desired. (NB this changes name of all instances of level type, but there will only be one instance anyway in a  one general storey setup)

Change a level’s elevation:

go to organisation dialogue, stories tab, highlight the storey that the level’s assigned to, press edit button

Edit elevation as desired (NB this edits elevation of that instance of the level type. In general storey setup there will only be one instance anyway)

Delete a level:

Deleting a level type doesn’t delete instances of that level that already exist in the file

To delete a level instance, go to organisation palette, stories tab, highlight the storey that the level’s assigned to, press edit button

Untick the relevant level

Now any objects previously bound to it will show as bound to “[deleted level name] (doesn’t exist)”

To completely get rid of a level, need to delete the level type and also any instance of it per storey. (There will only be one instance in a general storey setup)

Does deleting levels cause issues? Yes I think it might, does it make things revert to a random layer elevation instead? May be best not to, and prefix active levels with *

[Tom W.]

Thanks @line-weight.

 

On 4/24/2024 at 4:09 PM, line-weight said:

Is it something to do with the difference between a "level" and a "level type"? Because in my setup I think I only use "level types" and disregard what happens to levels that are intended to repeat in multiple stories.

 

I think it's just the rather convoluted way that VW has designed Stories to work: first you create custom level 'types', then you use these to create your Default Story Levels, then you are finally in a position to put your Story/Stories together by selecting which Default Story Levels you want to include.

 

On 4/24/2024 at 4:09 PM, line-weight said:

I think I must have "layerless levels" but where is it that you make the choice between a layerless level and a story level?

 

When you create a new Default Story Level you have the option to associate a Layer with it (see 'Create Layer' check box). Or you can edit an existing Default Story Level + create a layer for it after the fact. It's as if you can come at it (structuring the file) from the Story side of things where the Levels have primacy + Layers are added as part of the level-creation process as + when you need them, or you can come at it from the Layer side + add Levels to the Layers which I think is what you are doing. I have kind of done a mish-mash of both. I like the fact that I can have a Design Layer for (for example) all my furniture, kitchen units, etc + link that layer to a Story in the way that you do + then have access to multiple Levels set to the different floor finish elevations (if I have different thickness floor finishes in different rooms). So I can have all my objects on the same Design Layer but (because they are all symbols) set their elevations in the OIP based on the room they are in + the corresponding Level. Previously I used to set up different Design Layers with different layer elevations + place the objects on the relevant layers. By associating the levels to the Design Layer I can keep the layer + the levels separate i.e. I can have an 'objects' layer + 'laminate floor', 'floor tiles', 'carpet', etc levels. I don't want 'laminate floor' or 'floor tiles' design layers which is what I'd end up with if I created the layer in the Stories set-up.

 

I've probably got all this completely wrong but that's how it looks to me at the moment!

 

On 4/24/2024 at 4:09 PM, line-weight said:

*tick “use elevation benchmark” (what does this actually do? Chooses benchmark style to use by default? This doesn’t seem to happen)

 

I wondered about this too.