La sugerencia automática le ayuda a obtener, de forma rápida, resultados precisos de su búsqueda al sugerirle posibles coincidencias mientras escribe.
Mostrando los resultados de
Mostrar solo
|
Buscar en lugar de
Quiere decir:
Esta página se tradujo para tu conveniencia mediante un servicio de traducción automática. No es una traducción oficial, y puede contener errores o traducciones imprecisas. Autodesk no garantiza, ni expresa ni implícitamente, la precisión, la confiabilidad ni la exhaustividad de la información traducida por el servicio de traducción automática y no será responsable por los daños o las pérdidas que se produzcan como consecuencia de la confianza depositada en dicho servicio.Traducir
It would be much more useful to have these two parameters "Wrapping at inserts" and "Wrapping at ends" as an Instance parameters instead of Type parameters to eliminate the need to create multiple types of the same wall.
Is it possible to take the wall Wrapping type parameters and change them over to Instance parameters?
I was reading about an older thread where a recommendation was made to create separate wall types, one with wrapping and one without. I believe that we could all use a more elegant solution to this problem.
I sometimes use wall wrapping for internal walls where the wall ends with no connection. the problem is when I must break a wall for a steel column, I don't want the the plaster wrapping next to the column, there I will put expansion material and wall ties. in this case I need to create a new wall type with the suffix no wrapping, It would be much better to make the wrapping function an instance parameter as so there is no need to make multiple wall types. there are many other instances where there are differing wrapping conditions for walls.
Yes. I have a very large and complex project and it contains hundreds of wall types. Many of these are purely because we need walls to wrap differently at ends. Why in the World is it not instance based? Could it not at least be both instance and type based so we can choose ourselves? And whilst your at it, perhaps it would be best to be able to set it individually. Like right clicking and changing the wall end to disallow or allow join. Could this be an easy way to deal with these odd variations? It needs attention to allow us more flexibility in our modelling and getting more out of our model/drawings without overmodelling.
Those are my feelings exactly. We are getting to the stage where contractors are grabbing their building information directly from the models, and being able to fully model buildings as they are to be built is becomming more important. it seems to me that revit could do more towards making their platform a one stop shop as opposed to being held ransome to countless add on merchants.
A function within the control of the wall end that allows "wrapping on ends" for individual wall ends would be nice. When we right click on the wall control node, we have the option within it to disallow join. An extra option to allow wrapping on ends would be great, rather than making 2 versions of the same wall, one that wraps at ends, one that does not.
The four default wrapping options are shown below in a standard GWB wall. None of them are ideal -- I've bubbled where each does not correspond to how I would like it to look for my work. Your preferences might well be different. Since I rarely use uncased wall openings, I would use C (good for doors, good for wall ends) and use the requested tool to add a wrap at the wall opening. As it stands now, I'd have to split the long wall in C and change the lower half to B, with possible consequences farther down the wall.
Thanks, Bill! It sounds like it would be even more helpful to differentiate Window and Door Inserts in the Wall properties... or maybe even better to have it a property of the Window Family/Type? That way you wouldn't have to adjust individually...
It should work the same way it works in ACA with end caps, where you can design as many different conditions (ex. inside corner, outside corner, window and door jambs..etc) and be able to assign it to any side of the wall.
There ways around in Revit, however, it is not streamlined to make it practical to use.
It is most helpful to everyone's ideas to present related ideas to everyone to vote for those as well. In the case where we think that the ideas are essentially the same, we should let @kimberly_fuhrman-jones know that we think the two ideas should be merged. This will combine their votes and get more attention that way. Don't forget to use the @ to get her tagged, so she will see the post.
Kimberly,
Several of the ideas that @wr.marshall posted above should be merged with this one I think. Not all, but several of them. Also, of those that don't fit merging with this idea, I believe those could possibly be merged into one as well. I'll let you be the judge of that. Thank you!
Agree with your statement for most ideas. Though my idea of drag and drop wall layers in a wall join is a different idea, the philosophy could probably be applied to wraps, especially if wraps become instance based.
I didn't feel the above links warranted a combine as all asking what appeared to be different specifics with regards to wall wraps.
I do regularly tag Kimberly when I feel an idea is the same.
I agree your idea of the drag and drop wall layers is separate (although related) from this idea, but in my mind at least 2 of the ones you listed are the same as this one. That's why I thought a tag to Kimberly was worthwhile.
You and I are of the same mindset, I believe, most of the time. Like you did in the comments of your drag and drop idea, I was also letting others know about tagging Kimberly. Just a small difference in thought process in this case I guess.