set the "planes" of a building in vectorworks

[Ramaja]

presupposing you speak to someone who passes for the first time to the vw system you have patience even if I imagine that the answer seems obvious to those who have been accustomed to us for a long time.

we can create a building on the style of the "canadà house" of the zetadierre tutorial.
in the tutorial, you start from a series of vertical masonry that define a closed space and associates us with a loft. at that point there is some confusion because the loft does not behave as it should and zdr mentions that it did not place a "lucid loft" previously created but of which it did not explain the parameters.
We imagine creating a house from scratch, exactly in the building order.
lay the foundations, then a connection jet that acts as a floor above the wasp.
at that point you climb with the walls of a hypothetical basement that arrives, to the ceiling, exactly at the altitude +0
from here starts a new loft that represents the floor of the ground floor, raising a 30n of centimeters from floor 0.
from +30 share the external walls of the house rising to taste, say 270cm.
we try to set everything in vw, starting from the glosses - floor.

I have two possibilities in the interaction "solar - masonry": I can draw the wall from the plane +0 and then insert the loft to the floor 0 going to manage the intersection between the two objects layer by layer; the wall will become in this case 300cm tall (and not 270) but I can do so that, for example, the outer plaster will cover the same floor, so as to prevent the grey band appearing in the prospectus.
pretty rough I guess.
in the clearing case I could, for example create an intermediate gloss and call it "solaio 0", from the quota +0 to the quota (es) +30, and then another gloss called "ground floor", which starts from +30 and has walls 270cm high.
If it were a structural design I would have no problems, but here we have an architectural design with plasters, coats, masonry and counterparets, floors, screeds, etc. that in reality does not constitute two solid and single objects such as the wall and the ceiling of vw. the outer plaster goes to cover the sandwich of the loft, while the inner one drops below the floor to the screed... not to mention the insulating layer for the trash.. .
In this case then, I would have the entire layer of 30cm of the "solar 0" discovered in an open gl rendering of the prospect without the plaster going to hide it.

by those who work there every day, I would like to know which is the best system to draw, so as to limit the problems of junction and speed everything. is it possible to create a practically exact section of the real model or is it better to surrender and edit in 2d to correct inconsistencies?

Thank you.

 

[zetadierre]

first of all one thing: how long have you been using vectorworks? a few weeks? begin to make your 2d in all its power.

ps: now I answer the question

 

[zetadierre]

when I realized that tutoria I used the 2011 architect version. I used a command called "model tax" in which you configured plane heights and floors etc... and the program created a set of specially made polishes. I personally abandoned that method: the loft is easily manageable even only using a glossy per floor.

an example for everyone: if a glossy design is placed at a z of 300 and we realize a ceiling of 30 thickness, that loft will have the floor of tread at an absolute altitude 300 and at altitude 0 relative to the gloss \piano in question.

It's like in reality! you walk on the floorboards, if those floors are thick 50 cm those 50 cm will be in the direction of the floor below!

regarding the reliability of sections 2d: vw allows you to get 2d sections of models. maximum of this tool you reach it when you make a 40-story skyscraper, make a representation of the structure in a mega section at 200.

if you have to show interior furnishings or represent particular things like line color differences on the same object) the thing is tougher.

Anyway, a tip from those who like you in 2009 lost their heads to want to do all the hybrid way: He works in pure 2d until you know him very well! the free and hybrid 3d will come accordingly, trust me!

 

[Ramaja]

understood: in fact I assumed that vw worked as archicad but apparently in this is a little more evolved.
at this point I leave the tutorial "casetta in canadà" and I see to do some experiment on my own rather than try to replicate it step by step.
Of course I don't expect to draw in 3d in four and four, but inevitably, when you have the new car you have fun trying it and making it do things that you might never need, just because that function "exists".
I add that, I am abnormal compared to those who typically approached the cad recently. In 1997 we imposed the design professor 2 to draw the exam on the pc (inaudito!!!) and not only, but we did it directly in 3d, although never having used a cad before. We used microstation 95, a program that still today from points to many current cad 3d, so after being passed by to archicad (with which I did not find myself) and then being surrendered to the great brother (autodesk) finally passing to vw made me return the itching to the hands for design directly in 3d.
for now I'm only doing evidence to understand the logic behind vw2012, then it's obvious that at work we move little by little, with eyes always to the result

 

[zetadierre]

understood: in fact I assumed that vw worked as archicad but apparently in this is a little more evolved.
at this point I leave the tutorial "casetta in canadà" and I see to do some experiment on my own rather than try to replicate it step by step.
Of course I don't expect to draw in 3d in four and four, but inevitably, when you have the new car you have fun trying it and making it do things that you might never need, just because that function "exists".
I add that, I am abnormal compared to those who typically approached the cad recently. In 1997 we imposed the design professor 2 to draw the exam on the pc (inaudito!!!) and not only, but we did it directly in 3d, although never having used a cad before. We used microstation 95, a program that still today from points to many current cad 3d, so after being passed by to archicad (with which I did not find myself) and then being surrendered to the great brother (autodesk) finally passing to vw made me return the itching to the hands for design directly in 3d.
for now I'm only doing evidence to understand the logic behind vw2012, then it's obvious that at work we move little by little, with eyes always to the result

I think with these assumptions the 2d of vw you eat it at breakfast and in 3 weeks you will show us a metropolis in canadà:finger:

 

[zetadierre]

cmq in order

1) Understand the interface
2) the function of palette information attributes constraints associated with standard tools
3) Correct use of glossy categories and design glosses

I tell you that you would already use vectorworks mooolto better than many professionals I know

 

[lory.b]

He works in pure 2d until you know him very well! the free and hybrid 3d will come accordingly, trust me!

on this point I do not agree.
it will be that in the distant '96, when I faced the exercise of assisted architectural design, we were asked to realize directly a 3d model with minicad, which I then did not know. So, really, I didn't even know computers... Well, this direct approach to 3d I think is the best way to deal with and understand design support software (on which sketchup success is based).
Then it's clear. are the first that in the studio must work on two-dimensional architecture and develop the 3d model only later. therefore the environment 2d "to the autocad" is good to know it.
but it is not the correct approach. architecture is not two-dimensional; the mental design process is not two-dimensional. not even the learning of a software to support this process.

rather, better start with simple things. understand how they work and interact the parametric objects between them, and in the environment layers/classes... Sorry, lucid/categories, without prompting yourself to use them at 100%, but slowly refine the model.

Have fun!
I do.

 

[Ramaja]

My way of designing is a middle way.
lory.b is right about how to conceive an architectural object, but sometimes it is necessary to take a step back, for example when dealing with a structural model that requires the exfoliation of the various building layers of a plan. In that case, a good management of categories and 2d is the only road to travel. the solution is starting from the setting of an excellent 3d architectural relief from which you can derive easily elaborate 2d tables in order to obtain the best of the two worlds: a rigorous architectural congruence between plan and plan and a detailed structural and not limited by standard models in the program according to the dictates of the manuals of restoration and consolidation, at least for existing masonry buildings. we have to learn to bend any program to the result we want to get and not let us condition completely from the schematics thought by the creator of the software, which could limit us too. in this way our tables will always be original products and not the photocopy result of the output of vectorworka, rather than archaic or revit or allplan. this is the risk of modern bim programs for architecture.

 

[lory.b]

I agree with what you say.
there are still limits in these software that focus on contemporary building with parametric objects that are rarely adaptable to our historical building fabric.
I recently built the 3d model of an existing castle.
while being only a representative model (architectures are only 2d) they often resort to solid modeling to obtain elements faithful to reality.

I think, however, that the approach to software should be primarily oriented to 3d functions because it is in the nature of the software itself to be so conceived and used. It's the way to better understand his philosophy.
categories and glosses work together to manage the model. call them layers/glosss is surely misleading, they are volumes-containers of architectural elements belonging to categories/classes... from here everything starts, from a 3d concept of volume-container.
I do.