Jump to content

How can I get ID to see sidelights


Ramon PG

Recommended Posts

I am trying to complete the Door Schedule but some doors have sidelights in them and the ID tool will not recognize them. ID will record the correct width and height of the door, but there's no mention of the sidelight. There is not "field" into with to enter any info. The ID tool for window will not recognize it as a window, either.

Do I have to tinker with some database or something?

Link to comment

It is great that Chris has helped out here. I just don't understand what he is saying though. I am not sure that the questions has been answered.

I too would like to know if I can ID the sidelight and get it into a schedule. This is one reason that I do not use the automated schedule process.

Link to comment

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin:

It is great that Chris has helped out here. I just don't understand what he is saying though. I am not sure that the questions has been answered.

Well, beats me, too...

I thought I was supposed to be happy.

BTW, are there any decent symbol libraries one can get or buy?

Link to comment

Seeing as how no one has an answer to puting an ID on a sidelight PIO, it seems that using separate windows is indeed the answer.

I am curious about Windoor. It has wonderful creation capabilities, but how does it interface with the ID tool? Does it present the same door/sidelight conflict?

Link to comment

quote:

Originally posted by Ramon P:

... if you want to use the actual elevation of the 3D items in your door elev & schedule sheet.

I just discovered today the "Creating an Interior Elevation". Check out the on-line help. It's very interesting. It creates partial elevations by selecting elements from the Floor Plan. And I guess you could use it for the doors and window elevations.

Any tips on how you do it, anybody?

Link to comment

quote:

Originally posted by Ramon P:

Originally posted by Ramon P:

[qb] ...Any tips on how you do it, anybody?

This is really no different than how we have been creating exterior elevations. You are simply taking the selected wall and associated objects and viewing them in the appropriate elevation view. Choose front, back, left, or right for the proper view and then convert copy to lines.

Link to comment

It's better for the crowd that prefers to "draw" their elevations/sections.

If you use the one-class-per-wall protocol?so you can turn off the exterior wall(s) to allow the interior walls/components to be viewed in a Viewport?you'll more nearly achieve the "live" section/elevation objective.

Either way works but the first is, of course, static. Better have the developed design signed-off first! ;-)

Good luck,

Link to comment

Ramon, Don't know that it is better, it is just the way the I have always done it. Anytime that I have tried to make my elevations a live view of the model, I have been frustrated. There are always anomolies. In the end it seems better to draw the elevation and be able to show the detail in 2d rather than trying to model it in 3d, (such as roof eaves, or window trim).

I also do not see a way to have hatches in a 3D view.

Link to comment

quote:

Originally posted by Travis:

...If you use the one-class-per-wall protocol?so you can turn off the exterior wall(s) to allow the interior walls/components to be viewed in a Viewport?you'll more nearly achieve the "live" section/elevation objective...

I have never head of this before. Do you mean to say that each wall receives its own class? I can see how it would work, but it seems like a lot of extra work and tedium to keep track of all those classes.

Link to comment

Certainly depends on the complexity of your project.

We use a "Guidelines" design layer that has the basic geometric shapes or outline from which the walls were laid out. As we get close to an approved design (and after the walls have been run through Wall Framer, if applicable), we'll go to the Guidelines layer and note each individual wall segment, starting at 12 o'clock, ascending numerically in clockwise direction. This becomes the wall Class key.

Then we create a batch of classes: Wall-Ext-1\lower; Wall-Ext-1\main; Wall-Ext-1\Upper; Wall-Ext-1\FullHt. And so on. Because of VW's naming convention, this adds very little to the menu "load" but gives you immense control from Viewports. If needed (and I usually need it), you can print out a copy of the Guidelines layer with the numerical key. Then go through and re-assign each wall segment to it's special class. Do the same for the framed segments on their layers, and you're ready for both elevations and sections.

Hope that's reasonably clear.

Also, there are two ways to get hatches onto "3D" views. In a Viewport, draw geometric shapes with hatch fills over the model view. OR, place a hatch in a rectangle (with no lines) and create an image. Then make the image into a texture. Use like any other texture.

Good luck,

[ 05-06-2005, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Travis ]

Link to comment

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin:

Ramon, Don't know that it is better, it is just the way the I have always done it. Anytime that I have tried to make my elevations a live view of the model, I have been frustrated. There are always anomolies. In the end it seems better to draw the elevation and be able to show the detail in 2d rather than trying to model it in 3d, (such as roof eaves, or window trim).

I also do not see a way to have hatches in a 3D view.

I'm one of those people who just keeps teaking the design up until I'm extremely satisfied. I know it's an insecurity thing, but I don't have enough money for the therapy right now.

I don't pretend to detail using the model; it would take a super computer to be able to do that. I just want to spend as much time designing and less patching up design errors in the detailing phase. In the meantime I consider it as sculpting. I am new to 3D CAD and I'm high on it for now. Besides, it is a fantastic communications and selling tool. Most client don't understand 2D drawings and they won't tell you, either. 2D is for Architects (an some galleries).

I do love to draw sections and details; you tend to like that more the older you get. But the easier I can do my work, the better. Don't you use any CAD details from door, window and other vendors? Does it make you work less valuable? I don't think so.

If I could give the contractor a scaled model of the building instead of plans, I would be in design heaven.

Link to comment

quote:

If I could give the contractor a scaled model of the building instead of plans, I would be in design heaven.

The Patkaus (sp?) did a school for a native community in British Columbia and did just that. I'm sure they did have drawings, but there were enough unique aspects to the design and they were using local, largely unskilled, labor so built a big, I think half scale, model (for those that live in the saner parts of the world that mean 1/2" = 1'-0"). It was literally to be used to take measurements off of.

[ 05-06-2005, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Delmer ]

Link to comment

The important thing is trying to communicate exactly what you want the builder to do, without the hassle of interpretations. If you give the buiilder an exact model with all specs attached there would not be, in theory, that problem. Bigger building companies, as Chris says, will redo the various elements of the CDs in what we call over here shop drawings (SDs) for fabrication. The designer will then confirm that the SDs are what he wants.

And of course a model would also help the designer avoid loose ends and unmatching (incongruent?) corners and element that you almost always get, and builders love to exploit, when working 2D. I can remember that Michaelangelo's St. Peter's dome was first built in scaled models. The model supposedly cost as much as a small church of the times.

Link to comment

You tricky builders want to take over the world. Don't you? You want us architects to work for YOU!!!

I am currently working with a builder. Although it is not a design-built he is the sole contractor and he's involved in complementing the design process by giving his opinion every step of the way. This is a first for me. He will have to help me come in budget or loose all his time. On the other hand he won't be in a competitive bidding process. He's required to price his job and guarantee no change orders, provided they are not from an unforeseable nature.

It's both an interesting and scary proposition. And I suggested it...

Link to comment

If this is a first for you, what an excellent learning opportunity. . .presuming the builder is worth his salt.

I absolutely love to collaborate with architects and frankly wish we did less in-house design work. If I had my druthers, archies would get to work in the field for a couple of years before they started drawing stuff. Or better yet, each design/arch firm would have a retired contractor (or two) on call for consults. Oh well. We all live and learn.

Link to comment

quote:

Originally posted by Ramon P:

The important thing is trying to communicate exactly what you want the builder to do, without the hassle of interpretations. If you give the buiilder an exact model with all specs attached there would not be, in theory, that problem. Bigger building companies, as Chris says, will redo the various elements of the CDs in what we call over here shop drawings (SDs) for fabrication. The designer will then confirm that the SDs are what he wants.

And of course a model would also help the designer avoid loose ends and unmatching (incongruent?) corners and element that you almost always get, and builders love to exploit, when working 2D. I can remember that Michaelangelo's St. Peter's dome was first built in scaled models. The model supposedly cost as much as a small church of the times.

Michaelangelo and St. Peter's Dome? Sistine Chapel maybe :-)

This is a very good thread. Coming from a product design and engineering background we have moved into supplying toolmakers (our builders) with 3D CAD data files. Toolmakers/manufacturers will then modify the data sets as required to fit in with their methodologies for making the tools/parts.

In the product design sector we have used rapid prototyping for many years as a validation method of the CAD design - there is no substitute! Even this is not perfect though.

Its interesting that the cosntruction sector is now being targetted by established MCAD businesses like Dassault with CATIA (ref Frank Gehry). The ideal being a single building model which is used and updated by architect and contractors. To be honest this already happens in most big projects already with 2D data sets - Microstation being a well established exponent of this.

The problem for all is that once you go down this route you need to define the areas of responsibility and have very stringent control mechanisms in place for editing the master model. The "danger" of the 3D approach is that one small edit may parametrically propogate through the whole model/drawings sheets/BOM/Schedules - I've seen this happen time and time again in the MCAD sector - it hurts!!

Seriously though, your point about loose ends hits the nail on the head! As the 3D model (or even physical model come to that) becomes the core method of data transfer the onus of responsibility for the project shifts to the designer/architect. It will no longer be sufficient to draw a few lines and add a few notes!

This move requires a total redesign of the design process itself, but when it comes to it there still has to be an understanding of what can and cannot actually be achieved when the project is built.

In the MCAD and engineering sector there is a whole generation of designers who have been brought up with 3D design using 3D CAD and analysis. There has been, in my opinion, far too much emphasis on the "how to use the CAD system," approach to learning and less on the "what can a manufacturer actually achieve". As a result we have CAD perfection and often, inferior reality simply because the designer does not consider that the manufacturer really can't mate two parts together with a 0.0004mm accuracy or drill a 1mm diameter hole 100mm down!!

So moving to a 3D master model means no loose ends, a better undertsanding of what can be achieved on site AND a more open attitude to keeping lines of communications open with all parties involved in the project and - most importantly - learning to compromise on design features!

Problem is clients will expect to see the reality of the CAD perfection you won the contract with! Maybe thats why the trend is back to more artistic presentations :-)

[ 05-13-2005, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: KQ ]

Link to comment

As with all of what we (I) do on a screen, on paper or out of scraps, the model is an explanation tool. It can explain a roof form to a client or committee. It can explain a truss connection to an engineer. It can explain to me my headroom in a flight of stairs. Unless the client really needs it I like to avoid modelling the complete interior, it generally helps me very little and the builder even less. Complex components yes, but I haven't done a walk-through in years. I don't usually model my EPDM membrane either. The model aspect is solely for what needs to be explained to whom. I like the idea of this whole building complete with nails and glue turning on my screen, but I have to look at who it would assist to create the real thing and devote energies accordingly.

Link to comment

It's easier for me to just do the design/build in a virtual 3d environment. This allows for explicit error corrections and plan take-offs with the benefit of a quality experience for those paying the fees. There is no end to the possibilities for details and refinements. Confidence in the integrity of the planset is essential. 2d/3D integration provides priceless benefits.

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...