Community
Accepted solution
There is no one method. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. However, in case the model will be used for advanced design stages. I prefer to make wall for the core and wall for each finish type.
Imagine a room with 4 wall with same finish. This room shares one wall with 4 different rooms. Sometimes these 4 rooms will have different wall finishes. In that case, in my opinion, having separate walls for each finish will make it easier to apply. and easier to edit if a finish changes. That's a one simple case. some times, you have several finishes on one wall side.
check below quick sketch for reference.
Mostafa Elashmawy
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
There is no one method. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. However, in case the model will be used for advanced design stages. I prefer to make wall for the core and wall for each finish type.
Imagine a room with 4 wall with same finish. This room shares one wall with 4 different rooms. Sometimes these 4 rooms will have different wall finishes. In that case, in my opinion, having separate walls for each finish will make it easier to apply. and easier to edit if a finish changes. That's a one simple case. some times, you have several finishes on one wall side.
check below quick sketch for reference.
Mostafa Elashmawy
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
Accepted solution
It depends on the complexity of the project.
If you have many types of skirting with many types of finishes, I prefer to make each as a wall.
Mostafa Elashmawy
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
It depends on the complexity of the project.
If you have many types of skirting with many types of finishes, I prefer to make each as a wall.
Mostafa Elashmawy
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
I think other members of the forum may advise their workflows too. May be they have better methods.
Mostafa Elashmawy
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
I think other members of the forum may advise their workflows too. May be they have better methods.
Mostafa Elashmawy
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
In my opinion wall types should be based on the type of assembly/construction and properties such as fire, smoke, radiation/explosion rating. Of course one can take the different finishes into consideration but one doesn't really need to over do it. For Finishes, one can always use Key schedules which normally can work up till DD/WD stage easily.
Not sure why one needs to create a designated type for the Core and a different type for each wall finish...I know some do that for load bearing/structural walls but I do not see how that offers more and/or any significant advantages over using one compound wall. Personally I prefer not to work with 3 walls (1 core and a finish wall on each side) when just 1 can deliver the same results. One should take into consideration that more elements => potentially more constraints => more prompts/errors/issues to troubleshoot and resolve when a change or amendment to the design comes. Needless to mention that this can also make lots of other tasks exhausting (phasing/families/hosting...etc)
Parts and Assemblies 2 quite useful and powerful tools which you can find on the ribbon
- For quantification: Convert walls and floors to Parts and use Parts Schedules which can give you almost all the information needed for the quantification each layer in the wall assembly. If one is still missing a few more parameters you can still use dynamo to extract the missing properties and write to shared parameters
- For Finishes: ONE can split parts and assign different finishes to a wall without having to create a 2 wall types
Skirting can be added to the wall assembly using Wall built in swipes and reveals but that calls for more wall types...I prefer to use those and would rather use a line based skirting element for several reasons
- Skirting is not part of the wall assembly
- Skirting can vary a lot not just from room to room but even in one space => a wall type for each new skirting? that's not really practical
- Wall type integrated sweeps and reveals are hard to control and are useless when it comes to quantification
The level of detail does not always have to do with adding/modeling more elements. It has more to do with the level of information provided in the model and how one extracts it...Always think "Less is More" and never clutter your model with unnecessary elements for purposes which can be resolved in much easier ways
In my opinion wall types should be based on the type of assembly/construction and properties such as fire, smoke, radiation/explosion rating. Of course one can take the different finishes into consideration but one doesn't really need to over do it. For Finishes, one can always use Key schedules which normally can work up till DD/WD stage easily.
Not sure why one needs to create a designated type for the Core and a different type for each wall finish...I know some do that for load bearing/structural walls but I do not see how that offers more and/or any significant advantages over using one compound wall. Personally I prefer not to work with 3 walls (1 core and a finish wall on each side) when just 1 can deliver the same results. One should take into consideration that more elements => potentially more constraints => more prompts/errors/issues to troubleshoot and resolve when a change or amendment to the design comes. Needless to mention that this can also make lots of other tasks exhausting (phasing/families/hosting...etc)
Parts and Assemblies 2 quite useful and powerful tools which you can find on the ribbon
- For quantification: Convert walls and floors to Parts and use Parts Schedules which can give you almost all the information needed for the quantification each layer in the wall assembly. If one is still missing a few more parameters you can still use dynamo to extract the missing properties and write to shared parameters
- For Finishes: ONE can split parts and assign different finishes to a wall without having to create a 2 wall types
Skirting can be added to the wall assembly using Wall built in swipes and reveals but that calls for more wall types...I prefer to use those and would rather use a line based skirting element for several reasons
- Skirting is not part of the wall assembly
- Skirting can vary a lot not just from room to room but even in one space => a wall type for each new skirting? that's not really practical
- Wall type integrated sweeps and reveals are hard to control and are useless when it comes to quantification
The level of detail does not always have to do with adding/modeling more elements. It has more to do with the level of information provided in the model and how one extracts it...Always think "Less is More" and never clutter your model with unnecessary elements for purposes which can be resolved in much easier ways
1. I believe u haven't taken a look at the parts schedule I posted in the earlier reply...you can take off volume area length width and height of any material in a single compound wall without creating multiple types. Look at it again those quantities are taken off from the layers of 1 type compound wall!!!
2. Moreover, I am not sure who the source of your information is...but you can definitely turn off wall layers using filters...image below is a set of different walls converted to parts and a filter is applied to exclude all except the Blockwork!!! Yes you can do shopdrawing layouts for each layer of the wall assembly not just the finish!!!
3. What will increase type of walls!!! I am telling u to use 1 type and you + the other 2 participants whant to use 3 type to substitute 1 meaning as per your solution...on a project which has 30 walls type you will get (give or take assuming some have common finishes) 50-60 types
4. Again … you can control from which level each layer starts!!! you do not need to have 3 types of walls joined in order to control the block to start from slab and plaster from screed!!! and you can do that in a multitude of ways easiest of which is to properly define the structural levels of the compound wall and compound floor so that finish joins to finish substrate to substrate and core to core...I don't believe I need to elaborate on other methodes!!
1. I believe u haven't taken a look at the parts schedule I posted in the earlier reply...you can take off volume area length width and height of any material in a single compound wall without creating multiple types. Look at it again those quantities are taken off from the layers of 1 type compound wall!!!
2. Moreover, I am not sure who the source of your information is...but you can definitely turn off wall layers using filters...image below is a set of different walls converted to parts and a filter is applied to exclude all except the Blockwork!!! Yes you can do shopdrawing layouts for each layer of the wall assembly not just the finish!!!
3. What will increase type of walls!!! I am telling u to use 1 type and you + the other 2 participants whant to use 3 type to substitute 1 meaning as per your solution...on a project which has 30 walls type you will get (give or take assuming some have common finishes) 50-60 types
4. Again … you can control from which level each layer starts!!! you do not need to have 3 types of walls joined in order to control the block to start from slab and plaster from screed!!! and you can do that in a multitude of ways easiest of which is to properly define the structural levels of the compound wall and compound floor so that finish joins to finish substrate to substrate and core to core...I don't believe I need to elaborate on other methodes!!
Forums Links
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.
Post to forums
