Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
ARCHICAD Tutorial #67: Adding 2D to Sections and Details
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 авг 2018
- Knowing when to stop 3D and start 2D is an important skill for an ARCHICAD user. We need highly detailed 3D models, but there is a point where we just need to graphically convey information on individual views. This video talks about some theory and techniques on how to improve the quality and speed of your sections and details.
For more information, check out the blog post:
www.shoegnome.c...
thanks a lot - awesome tutorial :)
Thanks!
First, let me thank you for the invaluable service you provide those of us who use ArchiCAD. I've learned a LOT of cool stuff over the years from your videos and your template. I was curious if there's a reason you prefer to do all your plates as 2D elements rather than put top & bottom plates in complex profiles of walls (rather than composites) so that they're part of any wall? The reason I like plates in complex profiles is that the plates move with the walls - vertically or laterally. I know that if I were to put them in my sections as 2D, I'd forget to move them whenever I moved a wall in some other view. Is there a downside I'm not aware of to the way I do it (bogs down the model, etc.)? Thanks again for all your great help!
Thank you! I don't like using Complex Profiles for primary walls. The chances for weird junctions and odd window/door behavior increases. Also (historically at least) model performance can be affected. That all aside, I think using standard composites for walls is just faster, simpler, and more flexible-as the typical wall is just generic. I used to do sill plates as part of my foundation wall, but I decided i didn't like that. I much prefer the purity of simpler elements. Adding sill plates into complex profile walls is great until it isn't. Even one or two special conditions in a project creates overly custom moments. Maybe another way to look at it: I don't know what advantage switching to Complex Profiles that includes plates and such gives. Complex Profiles are more labor intensive to work with than Composites for elements that can be handled with Composites. And composites are easier to manage and swap out when you're dealing with a bunch of elements that differ only by thickness. Of course one could argue the new Complex Profile options in 22 make CPs super flexible. And that's true. BUT it also makes the elements that result from those Complex Profiles more custom and less automated. My preference is always to more automation. Or maybe proper automation. The manual nature of adding plates feels right because everything else is smooth and automated. Adding the plates manually is thus my slow down moment to check my work.
SO...that all comes together to suggest: simple elements to build the model. Then at the last minute add plates and other stuff that are really just decoration for the drawings.
Of course, I'm always happy to be challenged and shown a better way. I'm open to the possibility that I'm clinging to an old methodology and 22 is the beginning of Complex Profiles for more things.
I'm really glad you replied! I should give you a little background. My name is Chris Hinrichs. I live and work in Petoskey, Michigan, a small lakeside town popular with vacationers. I moved here from Chicago in 1997 to do hand drafting of mostly lakefront custom home CDs for an architect. I convinced him to transition to AutoCAD LT to do 2D drafting. Eventually, he wanted me to learn 3D Modelling, so he bought ArchiCAD 8.1 (whatever year that was) and tasked me with learning it well enough to show him how to use it. I had to learn it on the fly as I put together construction docs, so I never really learned the root logic behind the software and how efficient it could be. I jumped around as far as versions. I went from 8.1 to 11 to I think 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22. Now I work for a firm that has a subscription, so that will be nice. Interestingly, of the relatively small number of firms here, I'd say 50% use ArchiCAD. Sorry for being so long-winded, but I wanted to say it was in big part thanks to you that I finally started to understand the logic and flow of the program and really regained an interest in learning how to maximize its efficiency. If you were to see my template, you would see it's very similar to yours in most every way, except for the framed walls with plates as complex profiles.
I don't think I've experienced any of the weird junctions or issues with windows and doors that you have, or at least any that have revealed themselves in any drawings or model views I've issued . I really don't need too many different framed wall profiles to start out (the common ones all set up and ready to go in favorites), and if I need more, they're easy to create. For instance, most interior walls are two finishes (usually gyp. bd.) and a wall framing space. If you need a different material or to lose one skin or another, just make a duplicate, rename, and edit as needed. Exterior walls may have more layers, but it's still the same idea. I have a standard one each for lap, shingle, stone veneer, etc., also ready to go in favorites. Now, with the parameric stuff in 22 you can do all sorts of cool stuff. To answer your question, the advantage is having plates that move along with the walls. For me, that's invaluable. I don't have to worry about random floating 2D plates showing up on my prints because a wall moved and I forgot to move them on the section. Just so you know, I do use certain 2D stuff in sections, so I'm not completely opposed to it; things like anchor bolts, flashing, and drip edges. Like you, I stopped using a plate in my foundation wall complex profiles. I now model it as its own element.
Totally not trying to change your mind, I swear! Everyone has there own preferences. I'm really just trying to make sure I truly understand myself why I like doing it this way. I'm sure there may be some downside that hasn't reared its ugly head yet, but it's worked well for me so far!
Sounds like I need to give Complex Profile walls instead of Composite walls another try! I don't ever have the floating plate problem, but my method is definitely creating work that could be automated. Now I've got something new to think about. Thanks. Every version I try to question some aspect of my process, I think Walls might be what gets questioned with the leap to 22. Which makes extra sense because of the CP improvements. Thank you for sharing your story.
Finding the balance between 2d and 3d seems like a delicate and ever moving balancing act. Model too much and things start interfering and you end up with way too many special cases. Model too little and you are drafting too much and theres a chance things won't be coordinated. I'm going to start looking at building a 3D cross section through the building that would not interfere with a simpler model. The simple model would be for plans and elevations. The cross section that would rest in-line with the simple model would show details. Do you have any thoughts on this?
I have a lot of thoughts on this. A well built model shouldn't require a lot of special cases and should remove the need for lots of 2D. Here are two articles I wrote that expand more on my thoughts: blog.graphisoftus.com/bim-washed/conquering-bim-never-do-just-one-thing and blog.graphisoftus.com/archicad-15/does-that-still-not-work-is-this-still-the-best-solution In particular, look at the last graph in the 2nd blog post. That's the goal. Always less 2D and eventually less time doing 3D.
thank you for the tutorial! really helpful, i am new to archicad, migrating from autocad and i thought detailing was an automated procedure here. The material fills and such should be properties of the geometry i am currently doing a section on. For example when i setup a wall i want it to be reinforced concrete, insulation on the outside and plaster on both sides. Isnt that something i setup when drawing the wall and the detail of it is automatically produced? In this video there is a lot of manual work so that if something changes you have to go back to every detail and adjust the wooden beams for instance or the insulation width. Again, i am new to this maybe i got this all wrong.
Philip this video is about finding the balance between manual work and automation. ARCHICAD can't read your mind and sometimes setting up/managing the automation provides diminishing returns. In your example of concrete, insulation, and plaster, that would be 100% from a composite or complex profile and thus fully smart 3D. But if you wanted to show the rebar in section or a detail, that might be smarter to do in the one place you'll show it. There's an old BIM adage: if you are going to see it more than 2 times, model it.
In the end, it takes an experienced ARCHICAD user and architect to understand the line between 2d and 3d needs to be. I know some people who have 100% of the details in 3D and modeled. That's not always a cost effective solution or necessary. Additionally once you fully integrate design into your workflow, sometimes it makes sense to design a detail in 2D and then propagate the results back into the 3D. Other times the reverse. There are no firm rules. So just go with what helps design, improves the speed of your work, and makes you profitable.
thanks a lot for the guidance! i agree on having to find a balance, i suppose coming from a completely non automated workflow using autocad i expected archicad to give the solution to every annoyingly time consuming task. @@Shoegnome
@@philippaps44 BIM doesn't give the solution. It just provides the tools for you to find the solution faster, stronger, and better.
Which is to say, ARCHICAD is as smart or dumb as its operator.