topic Re: traditional plan... in Revit Architecture Forum

traditional plan...

Yien_Chao — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 02:01:46 GMT

In many architectural offices in Quebec, Canada (I did not compare with elsewhere in the world) the choice of hatching is only sparingly and to get a better reading of the plan. I will not discuss standards here, but only a fairly simple wish: To be able to display partition walls with only 2 lines and when there are supports such as concrete or concrete block, to display separate hatches and lines.

An example here, but I had to model 2 separate walls. One for the support (concrete block) and the other for all the rest of the finish.
Is it possible to achieve this with just one element while staying at a low level of detail?

Re: traditional plan...

barthbradley — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 02:51:27 GMT

What about Parts and then merge Layers together (after making them the same Material of course)?

Re: traditional plan...

syman2000 — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 03:40:21 GMT

Part would probably the approach. However if you don't want to merge multiple layers, other method you can use it add profile to the wall.

First add no hatch material to the course

Define the thickness of the CMU wall. Add your sweep profile. There add material to your sweep. Once you achieve this, you should be able to see your profile overlapping with your wall.

In the profile family, this is where you adjust the height and thickness.

Re: traditional plan...

RDAOU — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 08:59:39 GMT

@Yien_Chao

What you have done (2x wall Types joined) is the right and quickest to do it...any other way would be unnecessary tediousness.

Re: traditional plan...

XXalessio.amodioXX — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 11:43:32 GMT

Usually I model separetely Structural/Architectural and Finish walls. I think is the best practice

Re: traditional plan...

Yien_Chao — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 11:54:44 GMT

That would work only if you dont have too many walls and the design is fixed.

Re: traditional plan...

Yien_Chao — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 11:55:51 GMT

Will test this one

Re: traditional plan...

Yien_Chao — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 11:57:11 GMT

Yes indeed. But both are supposed to be one component. Easier for tagging and quantity check.

Re: traditional plan...

RDAOU — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 12:07:08 GMT

@Yien_Chao

Not necessarily...technically speaking they can be 2 components.You can join geometry and/or you can assemble them together (Select both and create assembly).

In terms of quantities and take offs, it is the same...both fall under the category walls.
In terms of tagging, it is even more convenient because you would be able to tag a whole lot more than material
In terms of practicality ... you would be able to issue framing layouts without any extra hassle

The only extra effort which you might need to put is in the Inserts families...door frame would require a slight adjustment to neck both walls

Re: traditional plan...

Yien_Chao — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 12:10:18 GMT

will check this one too.

Re: traditional plan...

Yien_Chao — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 12:12:43 GMT

@RDAOU wrote:
The only extra effort which you might need to put is in the Inserts families...door frame would require a slight adjustment to neck both walls

i think if you attach both, openings and doors will follow as one.

Re: traditional plan...

RDAOU — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 12:18:15 GMT

@Yien_Chao wrote:
@RDAOU wrote:
The only extra effort which you might need to put is in the Inserts families...door frame would require a slight adjustment to neck both walls

i think if you attach both, openings and doors will follow as one.

The opening yes, it will cut both joined walls but the geometry will not behave that way...ie: the depth of the sweep/extrusion of a door Frame will not increase to neck/flush both walls (it will stick to its primary host)...but with a little tweak that can be modified to make it work

Re: traditional plan...

Yien_Chao — Wed, 08 Sep 2021 13:30:39 GMT

think i will stick with the first idea : model 2 elements, joined them. less workaround.

Thank all