Jump to content
  • 6

Additional Roof Options


Kevin K

Question

Just another request regarding roof options.

As we all know, in the real world, all roofs need flashing where hips and valleys occur.

It would really be a step up, if that could be implemented within the roof settings options.

 

In the rendered image below, you will note (if you look closely) that I have included the hip, ridge and valley flashings.

You may need to click on the image to view it with a better resolution,

As an aside, the 3d standing seams on the roof, as well as the 3d vertical batts on the siding, were quickly created using surface array, btw.

 

It is sort of a pain to create the various metal flashing items, but in my view, it does add a bit of realism to renderings, etc.

Thoughts?

 

 

577223095_FRONTPERSPECTIVE.thumb.png.d6bdad6a619f9fa55eae7de7f0efe9ab.png

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Recommended Posts

  • 0
10 hours ago, Kevin K said:

But, wait….what about any comments regarding having the ability to create roof flashings ?  🙂

As long as all the other issues with the Roof Tool were resolved first...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • 0
1 hour ago, jeff prince said:

Most architects I know would not go to that level of detail for neither a rendering

 

That gives me a sad. When I am involved with community projects, the level of detail and rendering generally presented in never enough for a planning board, zoning board, or historical preservation commission to make a proper, educated decision.

Not to mention how often the look changes from presentation through construction.

On the other hand, the level of detail may colleagues and I present is to show EXACTLY how the finished work will look.

Link to comment
  • 0
On 7/21/2021 at 8:14 AM, Kevin Allen said:

 

That gives me a sad. When I am involved with community projects, the level of detail and rendering generally presented in never enough for a planning board, zoning board, or historical preservation commission to make a proper, educated decision.

Not to mention how often the look changes from presentation through construction.

On the other hand, the level of detail may colleagues and I present is to show EXACTLY how the finished work will look.

 

The problem with showing hyperrealism... It shuts down the conversation.

Typically, when you show such a rendering to non-architects**, they think it's done and will likely not comment or contribute to the discussion of higher level design objectives.  Rather, they will simply fixate on some detail such as a finish material.  I guess if that's the goal, then by all means model flashing and fruit baskets 🙂This is similar to leaving red herrings on a plan for the city to comment on so they don't start making design comments and stick to code.

 

**”non-architect” should be understood as anyone without an intimate working knowledge of the architectural design process and its artifacts… general public, children, uncontacted tribes, etc.  I’m not interested in the drama people within the industry like to stir up regarding titles and the lack of being licensed/chartered as an architect.

Edited by jeff prince
Ruffled feathers apparently
Link to comment
  • 0

I didn't mean to upset the apple cart here.

It was a simple request to perhaps add that option to the roof tools.  Plus, it is simply MY preference to show roof flashings....for my satisfaction.   I am pretty sure that is my right 🙂 

My clients tend to really appreciate that little bit of extra detailing. Again, my choice. Diminishing returns??  Not so much.

I suppose the takeaway is, "to each their own" 

As far as 'shutting down the conversation' Jeff...by including textures and materials, etc to a 3d Model...that IS the conversation.  It forces the client to think about what they see,  and to choose, if they have not done so, what they really want. At least in my world that is how it works.

 

Let's move on. 🙂

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • 0

I usually model ridge tiles, the roof looks more realistic and of course they show in hidden line elevations and roof plans too. 

In areas with tight planning controls, visually appealing, accurate representations really help to sway the doubters. We have solar panels, surely ridge tiles can’t be too difficult. Space X, now that’s difficult!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • 0

Personally I would like to see the roof tool improved in other ways,  as it’s still  quite basic and, for example, should better incorporate UK type fascias and soffits and also maybe gutters. 

I don’t think that I would want to show valley flashing as to be honest it’s not strictly relevant for concept visuals and actually there are valley tiles available for some ranges.

Link to comment
  • 0

The control you have over the interface between roof + wall components needs improvement. A roof component either clips a wall or is clipped by a wall but it would be better, where you have multiple wall components, if you could choose which are clipped + which aren’t rather than it always having to be either all or nothing.

 

I think the fact that you have to apply the edge offsets to all edges of the roof at once is a major drawback. You should be able to deal with edges individually like you can with Slabs.

 

Again like Slabs it would be great if there were ‘Add 3D Object To Roof…’ + ‘Subtract 3D Object From Roof’ commands to allow you to quickly/easily create custom features/details. 

 

Also there is no control over what happens at the ridge where two pitched roof faces meet. For example I might not want a vaulted ceiling all the way to the apex, I might want a tie beam at high level + run the ceiling components under that. The ‘Insert Attic’ option doesn’t really achieve anything meaningful.

 

Likewise if you have a monopitch roof your components are by default cut vertically at the ridge despite a square cut for the eave being selected. There are circumstances where you’d want the rafters cut vertically + other components cut square.

 

With all this being the case, I am happy continuing to create my flashings, fascias + rainwater goods manually using auto hybrids + symbols because at least I get exactly what I want.

Link to comment
  • 0

I would agree. There needs to be a fully comprehensive review of the roof tool.

 

We have just taken on a commission to produce full working and construction drawings for an architect firm and every time I take on a project, it is a school day.

 

I decided this time that before the 're-worked' plans were issued to the drawing office, that to improve productivity that I would at least try and model as much as I could before the working and construction detail was added.

 

This is the front elevation of one of the housetypes (NOT MY DESIGN)

 

1597243479_Screenshot2021-07-24at14_50_56.thumb.png.df1d12ef6763454e10670120cc00c197.png

 

Everything has been modelled with the exception of the annotations and dimensions.

 

One thing I have now found with the roof is to basically throw away anything with the actual roof tool and multiple components, as VW just cannot deal with anything slightly complicated. Simple features like gable ends cause VW to keel over and die - This is basic stuff. This also allows me to create trusses etc. and they will be accurate.

 

On the whole, I am really just using roof faces now, with a single component (usually the concrete roof tile and 20mm thick). This allows me to to be accurate in terms of setting out vertically (something again which VW has never been able to do successfully - A roof is set out from the wall head). I can chose the soffit level, facia level etc. based on extrudes, just wish there was more control over how extrudes and solids are displayed in plan views etc.

 

I can and do have valleys and hips as part of the roof, the ridge-piece above and the gable verge pieces are just a "receptive units" of 3D symbols.

 

Because all of the doors / windows / features etc. are all objects and symbols, they really just have to be placed in the correct position and VW will do the rest.  PS only half of the semi was drawn.

 

What would make the process much smoother is the be able to store viewport class and layer settings as styles so that they can be used across projects (also being able to edit the style in a worksheet would be a real bonus, can only dream).

 

On another point. It is disappointing to hear the age old statement 'non-architects'. There are many competent and fully qualified architectural designers / consultants that are more than capable of managing and running projects from conception to completion. As a Chartered Architectural Technologist, one of my practices USP's is that we provide an architectural service from a technical design perspective applied across the whole of the project.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • 0

@Kevin C what are the sections + construction details you take from these models like? Especially the eaves detail. When you say you just use a Roof Face for the roof covering are you then modelling the rest of the roof construction yourself?

Thanks

Link to comment
  • 0

Tom.

 

Yes, that is correct - the roof face is the only item that is created by VW. One of the biggest disappointments in Vectorworks is it's inability to efficiently produce construction level detailing at a scale any higher than 1:50. I had a long discussion with VW support regarding this a couple of years ago, where it was said quite clearly that the software was not designed for that.

 

Yes, in theory I could model an entire project, but the file would be so bloated that I don't think I would be able to run it.  Silly things like membranes, insulation and other sundry items all have to be added in as annotations in the sheet layer, so any changes to the model whatsoever means that they all have to be re-drawn. Also, construction level detailing is on a scale of 1:5 or 1:10 (generally) and this is outwith the scope of VW, so why should we change from detailing in 2D (which VW is very quick and efficient at) to a LOD that it 100% reliant on the stability on a piece of software that is known throughout the industry as one of the most unstable architectural design tools in existence.

 

Don't get me wrong, when VW works properly, it is great, but the amount of times on a daily basis I hear through from the drawing office the expletives of "that f*****g Vectorworks has crashed again" - and there are only three in the DO.

 

Vectorworks does not understand anything of the following critical building components for me to trust it to construction level detailing:

 

Windows:

  • There are 2 cills in every window (independent of each other) and everyone knows that, but VW doesn't.
  • There are lintels in every window (sometimes they are combined into a composite steel lintel), but sometimes they are not - again VW has no concept of that
  • There is no way for VW to carry out daylight and opening calculations (it's either one or the other)
  • Could go on - the list is endless

Doors:

  • There are industry standard door sizes (especially for external doors)
  • The 'bodging' required to make doors fit into horizontal and vertical coursing means that schedules are generally useless without massive over-rides

Roofs:

  • Don't get me started on roofs

I could go on, but my response to the original point was regarding the capability of VW to add flashings, valleys, roof detailing etc. to basically 'consent' level drawings - I.e no greater detail than 1:50).  VW is currently not capable of creating a model that can be produced efficiently and to a LOD that is suitable for construction without massive 'annotation' overrides etc.

 

I should add that the primary construction method used in our country for nearly all of residential and domestic projects is timber frame. We do have a six storey block of flats and that is an RC frame with SFS infills - again 1:50 level model only with 2D detailing.  If I tried to do it any other way, my practice would just not survive as I would not be able to justify (in terms of fees) the time and manpower it would take to model the to LOD required. What I find frustrating in that regard is 

 

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0
On 7/24/2021 at 3:19 PM, Kevin C said:

I would agree. There needs to be a fully comprehensive review of the roof tool.

 

We have just taken on a commission to produce full working and construction drawings for an architect firm and every time I take on a project, it is a school day.

 

I decided this time that before the 're-worked' plans were issued to the drawing office, that to improve productivity that I would at least try and model as much as I could before the working and construction detail was added.

 

This is the front elevation of one of the housetypes (NOT MY DESIGN)

 

1597243479_Screenshot2021-07-24at14_50_56.thumb.png.df1d12ef6763454e10670120cc00c197.png

 

Everything has been modelled with the exception of the annotations and dimensions.

 

One thing I have now found with the roof is to basically throw away anything with the actual roof tool and multiple components, as VW just cannot deal with anything slightly complicated. Simple features like gable ends cause VW to keel over and die - This is basic stuff. This also allows me to create trusses etc. and they will be accurate.

 

On the whole, I am really just using roof faces now, with a single component (usually the concrete roof tile and 20mm thick). This allows me to to be accurate in terms of setting out vertically (something again which VW has never been able to do successfully - A roof is set out from the wall head). I can chose the soffit level, facia level etc. based on extrudes, just wish there was more control over how extrudes and solids are displayed in plan views etc.

 

I can and do have valleys and hips as part of the roof, the ridge-piece above and the gable verge pieces are just a "receptive units" of 3D symbols.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is very similar to how I do stuff.

 

The roof/roof face tools are only really useful at very early stages when you are not showing much detail at all. So, I either draw roofs manually, or I might use a 'roof face' object as the outer layer only.

 

As you say, just like the window and door tools, the roof tool has very little understanding of how things are actually put together in reality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0
On 7/25/2021 at 2:19 AM, Kevin C said:

I would agree. There needs to be a fully comprehensive review of the roof tool.

 

We have just taken on a commission to produce full working and construction drawings for an architect firm and every time I take on a project, it is a school day.

 

I decided this time that before the 're-worked' plans were issued to the drawing office, that to improve productivity that I would at least try and model as much as I could before the working and construction detail was added.

 

This is the front elevation of one of the housetypes (NOT MY DESIGN)

 

1597243479_Screenshot2021-07-24at14_50_56.thumb.png.df1d12ef6763454e10670120cc00c197.png

 

Everything has been modelled with the exception of the annotations and dimensions.

 

One thing I have now found with the roof is to basically throw away anything with the actual roof tool and multiple components, as VW just cannot deal with anything slightly complicated. Simple features like gable ends cause VW to keel over and die - This is basic stuff. This also allows me to create trusses etc. and they will be accurate.

 

On the whole, I am really just using roof faces now, with a single component (usually the concrete roof tile and 20mm thick). This allows me to to be accurate in terms of setting out vertically (something again which VW has never been able to do successfully - A roof is set out from the wall head). I can chose the soffit level, facia level etc. based on extrudes, just wish there was more control over how extrudes and solids are displayed in plan views etc.

 

I can and do have valleys and hips as part of the roof, the ridge-piece above and the gable verge pieces are just a "receptive units" of 3D symbols.

 

Because all of the doors / windows / features etc. are all objects and symbols, they really just have to be placed in the correct position and VW will do the rest.  PS only half of the semi was drawn.

 

What would make the process much smoother is the be able to store viewport class and layer settings as styles so that they can be used across projects (also being able to edit the style in a worksheet would be a real bonus, can only dream).

 

On another point. It is disappointing to hear the age old statement 'non-architects'. There are many competent and fully qualified architectural designers / consultants that are more than capable of managing and running projects from conception to completion. As a Chartered Architectural Technologist, one of my practices USP's is that we provide an architectural service from a technical design perspective applied across the whole of the project.

 

 

 

This is great and also how we approach roofs. We don't use a single roof face with components, but model the individual members eg rafters, purlins, roofing, flashings etc. This makes the model accurate and also the elevations and sections don't need too much tidying up in the annotation space, if any.

Would love it if the roof tool could show actual materials like tiles, and include ridge and hip flashings etc.  Also the wall tool needs to show cladding/siding materials.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0
1 hour ago, Tom W. said:

@BG do you include roof elements like membranes, insulation, internal finishes, etc in the model or add these in the annotations space like @Kevin C?

Hi

No, we usually add insulation in the annotations, unless it's a layer of say PIR insulation which has a hatch.

Link to comment
  • 0

@Tom W.

Hi.

 

For items such as insulation / membranes etc. we have removed all of them from the main model as show them at the detail level only. It is just not worth the hassle.  The problems with doing things on an annotation layer in a drawing sheet is that if anything changes whatsoever, you have to meticulously go through everything to make sure it still lines up.

 

Too many possibilities for errors and just not worth the risk.

 

Link to comment
  • 0

@Kevin C + @BG Ok interesting I am putting as much detail into my models as possible + making full use of wall/slab/roof components. I am generally pretty happy with the results + do very little annotating but the roof options leave a lot to be desired (as per earlier post) + is much more of a faff to get something passable than it is with walls/slabs. My roofs are generally very simple affairs + so it's crazy the amount of jiggery-pokery required to generate a semi-accurate eaves detail + yet the roof remain correct in external + internal 3D views.

 

Walls could do with improvement too when it comes to component-wrapping + sections through doors/windows. 

 

Slabs however I have very few problems with + I'd be quite happy making my whole model from them if you could rotate them sufficiently!

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
Answer this question...

×   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...