BIM Workbench

[yorik]

In the Arch Structure tool, you have in the panel a Drawing Mode with Beam and Column as options. This helps a lot to understand that we can create these two elements with this single tool. Maybe something similar in the panel of the Arch Window tool will make more easy to visualise that we can create both windows and doors with it.
But I think that you do not need to split in different and individual tools the options to make them more comprehensible.

Hmm that's a bright idea... One toolbar button, but inside the tool, "tabs" or "sub-buttons" somehow. This could apply for all those tools that have multiple submodes, like structures, windws/doors, rebars...

[hardeeprai]

Maybe.. Let's keep thinking. In any case, a higher priority is certainly to make the whole window/door creation process more intuitive and elegant.

What about "joinery"?

[yorik]

I'm moving this thread to the BIM section, it's more logical...

[carlopav]

Hello, just wandering around with my mind and thinking about 2d representation in the BIM Workbench and about the section tool, that is already really powerful, but could be the key to produce ready to print 2d documented views.
I was thinking.... if the section tools could contain also 2d elements, like detail lines and dimension that only have to be shown when we are looking at the model from that section plane. Also the section could be setup when creating the corresponding level. Also, when activated (double click on his main group) change the view (like the sketcher) and hide the other sections. It could contain the scale for dimensions and other useful things.. ok, and i came up with the screenshot below. Do you think it could be useful?

[yorik]

I have exactly the same plan as yours BTW, arch sections can already have 2D objects. I also plan to extend the BuildingPart to have an implicit, "embedded" section plane. So you would basically have three objects to work with, to deal with views:

- Section planes: do not contain objects, define a 3D view (not yet), define a 2D view
- Building parts: contain objects, define a 3D view, define a 2D view (not yet)
- WP Proxies:do not contain objects, define a 3D view, do not define a 2D view

[carlopav]

I knew u were the man. :p
Great. I didn't understand the building part were same as levels.
It would be perfect if the initial setup could build also default views associated to levels. Then the user can add others or duplicate them.

[paullee]

"... to extend the BuildingPart to have an implicit, "embedded" section plane..."

That would be very productive

[bernd]

I knew u were the man. :p
Great. I didn't understand the building part were same as levels.
It would be perfect if the initial setup could build also default views associated to levels. Then the user can add others or duplicate them.

They are. This is to be flexible. Lots of building types may not have levels but other geometric boarders than levels to splitt them into pieces, thus the building part was indroduced.

[yorik]

yes, the "basic" use of Building Parts is to make levels (or storeys, floors, whatever). But being forced to divide your building into levels always annoyed me. What of an elevator shaft, for example? Or a glass curtain façade? Of course you can "fake" making a separate level only for it. But that's not correct semantically.

So the Building Part is basically a grouping of BIM objects. By setting its IFC role to "Building" or "Building Storey", you turn it into a building or a level, simple as that.

At the moment, they behave like a group, that is, an object can only be inside one BuildingPart. But we could also easily remove that restriction, I'm actually not sure if it's a good thing or not...

But there is another important feature too, BuildingParts have a Shape property, that is a compound of all its children. So they are basically a hybrid between a group and a part object. So they can be cloned, referenced in another file, etc. The idea is that you can also use BuildingParts to make repeatable components, such as a bathroom stall. If you set their IFC role to Element Assembly, they are exported as such to IFC, and reimportable as is.

But the main workflow I see is that you would use a BuildingPart as a level, work inside it (place it correctly, look at it from the angle you wish, right-click it in the tree view -> Write camera position, set its "Restore view" to True, and when you activate it, you'll find yourself all set, in that view. I'm planning to add an implicit section plane to it too (you can specify the height/offset), and the possibility to hide all other objects while you're working in (same as WPProxies). And maybe the possibility to cut the view, like the section plane does, but I'm not sure if it will still be practical to work with, that needs testing.

[carlopav]

They are. This is to be flexible. Lots of building types may not have levels but other geometric boarders than levels to splitt them into pieces, thus the building part was indroduced.

yes, the "basic" use of Building Parts is to make levels (or storeys, floors, whatever). But being forced to divide your building into levels always annoyed me. What of an elevator shaft, for example? Or a glass curtain façade? Of course you can "fake" making a separate level only for it. But that's not correct semantically.

I agree, I think the concept of levels is more semantically related to representation (since we experience buildings floor by floor, and so they perfectly identify plan views for example) than to group building components (that have more sense to follow other rules, the ones of construction for example, as workers will first build storeys and at the end add a curtain facade).

So the Building Part is basically a grouping of BIM objects. By setting its IFC role to "Building" or "Building Storey", you turn it into a building or a level, simple as that.

Perfect to me.

At the moment, they behave like a group, that is, an object can only be inside one BuildingPart. But we could also easily remove that restriction, I'm actually not sure if it's a good thing or not...

I think this is again correct. it forces a bit to be tidy, but that's not bad. Again it would be good to control in views which part has to be shown or eventually which components in the part.

But there is another important feature too, BuildingParts have a Shape property, that is a compound of all its children. So they are basically a hybrid between a group and a part object. So they can be cloned, referenced in another file, etc. The idea is that you can also use BuildingParts to make repeatable components, such as a bathroom stall. If you set their IFC role to Element Assembly, they are exported as such to IFC, and reimportable as is.
But the main workflow I see is that you would use a BuildingPart as a level, work inside it (place it correctly, look at it from the angle you wish, right-click it in the tree view -> Write camera position, set its "Restore view" to True, and when you activate it, you'll find yourself all set, in that view. I'm planning to add an implicit section plane to it too (you can specify the height/offset), and the possibility to hide all other objects while you're working in (same as WPProxies). And maybe the possibility to cut the view, like the section plane does, but I'm not sure if it will still be practical to work with, that needs testing.

That sounds very good.

What misleaded me about building parts and levels is that the icon in the tree was slightly different