divide surfaces and coatings

[moma]

to solve the problem of different wall thicknesses due to different plaster thicknesses and the problem of the different surface finishes, after comparison with more expert colleagues, I tried to build the virtual model "to the rustic", then alongside them other walls created only as thickness of plaster and/or tiles. in this way they are able to better control thicknesses and finishes in a second moment. However, when I insert doors/windows, revit only hole the central wall (it is obvious he in the family has as model a wall only and no more walls flanked). the problem is solved by creating in the starting families of the voids not anchored to the profile of the wall but to external reference boards, created specifically. And here we are. the problem arises on the door frame on the inner panels: This frame usually covers the whole door compartment, adapting to the dimensions of the wall, as the ends of the wall are bound in the starting family. However, with the walls "coated" (external lining, central wall, inner lining) the game does not work, as it remains bound to the profile of the central wall, and not knowing a priori how deep the "stratified" wall will be, it is hard to create external reference planes, as empty, unless to parameterize the distance of such axes in order to impose it randomly when I insert the window (replacement parameter). I feel a little bit cranky but it could work, I haven't tried yet.
the questions are:
1. Is there a less Moroccan way to solve the problem or the hypothesized road is correct?
2. it makes sense to build the virtual model as I proceeded (with the rustic and then the walls flanked for the coverings) or is too sleek and therefore it is advisable to use a single wall using then the command "divid surface" for the surface finishes (command that I discovered after finishing the model, ahimé), reserve to flank other walls only for coverings with a certain thickness (plants in the bathrooms, bases lapidei, etc.)
I'd like to understand what I'm suggesting because... wandering is human... persevering is evil!:wink:
Thank you!

 

[gfrank]

to solve the problem of different wall thicknesses due to different plaster thicknesses and the problem of the different surface finishes, after comparison with more expert colleagues, I tried to build the virtual model "to the rustic", then alongside them other walls created only as thickness of plaster and/or tiles. in this way they are able to better control thicknesses and finishes in a second moment....

Do you mean "control megio"?

....however, when I insert doors/windows, revit only hole the central wall (it is obvious he in the family has as model a wall only and no more walls flanked..); the problem is solved by creating in the starting families of the voids not anchored to the profile of the wall but to external reference boards, created specifically. And here we are. the problem arises on the door frame on the inner panels: This frame usually covers the whole door compartment, adapting to the dimensions of the wall, as the ends of the wall are bound in the starting family. However, with the walls "coated" (external lining, central wall, inner lining) the game does not work, as it remains bound to the profile of the central wall. . .

with the command merge geometry the 3 walls become one only, manageable by the family of the doors correctly ....

....
the questions are:
1. Is there a less Moroccan way to solve the problem or the hypothesized road is correct?
2. it makes sense to build the virtual model as I proceeded (with the rustic and then the walls flanked for the coverings) or is too sleek and therefore it is advisable to use a single wall using then the command "divid surface" for the surface finishes (command that I discovered after finishing the model, ahimé), reserve to flank other walls only for coverings with a certain thickness (plants in the bathrooms, bases lapidei, etc.)
....

you need to better understand why you do not use layers, of course differentiating the type of wall depending on the specific finish of the riveting/intonac

also it is possible to operate with "extrusions" on the wall
see:http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?t=8113&highlight=muri+rivestimento
http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?t=10330&highlight=rivestimento+legnothe command "divid surface" allows to change the type of material, but not the thickness

 

[moma]

Do you mean "control megio"?

I mean that when design I usually do not know what will be the coverings, neither inside nor outside (e.g. of building where externally I will perhaps use different finishes or different coatings, and where internally I have not yet decided where to place the baths) for which it is more convenient to make a single wall cha from scratch goes to the final level, managing the various coatings in a second time (differently I should divide on the horizontally that vertically

with the command merge geometry the 3 walls become one only, manageable by the family of the doors correctly ....

Yes, I know, I tried, but it doesn't work with the door frame, he always keeps the thickness of the central layer (i.e. the wall drawn "grick"), although the geometry of the different layers has been combined... Try to believe. .

Do you need to better understand why you do not use layers, of course by differentiating the type of wall according to the specific finishing of the riveting / plaster?

reason explained above

also it is possible to operate with "extrusions" on the wall
see:http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?t=8113&highlight=muri+rivestimento
http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?t=10330&highlight=rivestimento+legno

I've discovered this recently, I could effectively try for stone bases, etc.

the command "divid surface" allows to change the type of material, but not the thickness

In fact, I see it well for different "tinteggiatures", different surface effects, but not where the finish has a consistent thickness.. in the executive stage, great chants are taken if you do not consider this aspect. . .

thanks gfrank for the quick answers, I will not miss to deepen the links you wrote me, maybe I find something new... remains the problem of the door.. Are you sure it works with the walls union? to me it continues not to work (the door compartment "hole" all layers but the frame remains bound to the central wall)

 

[gfrank]

I understood you couldn't drill all the walls....
the components of the door (frame, cover, etc.) must be managed with offset parameters.
normally, I maintain the characteristics of the family on the inner part (or anyway in the opening side) and insert the parameters (offset) for the opposite side

 

[moma]

I understood you couldn't drill all the walls....
the components of the door (frame, cover, etc.) must be managed with offset parameters.
normally, I maintain the characteristics of the family on the inner part (or anyway in the opening side) and insert the parameters (offset) for the opposite side

I was obviously not clear enough. .

Therefore, if I understand correctly, in the family constraint covers and frame to a reference plane that I create as offset from the wall wire (from the opposite side of the opening sense obviously) and the parameter, right? I'll try, but I'm convinced that using coupled walls must be an exception and not the rule, better dividei surface ed Hosted extrusions I'm guessing. Thank you! !

 

[gfrank]

for families, I confirm.
the use of the coupled walls can serve for particular needs (e.g. design/calculum) of the structural, use of "blocks" in the internal partitions.
If it is "only" to have more flexibility in the project phase, first replace a wall that manages 2 or 3 side by side. then there are the necessary cases, such as the renovation with coat applications on existing wall, in which case it is necessary to resort to the walls flanked for the comparative phase (yellow/red) ....

 

[moma]

That's what I had intuited.
Thanks for the help!! !