[Discussion] A different approach to Arch modelling (Arch Assembly?)
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Re: [Discussion] A different approach to Arch modelling (Arch Assembly?)
Yes, exactly!
follow my experiments on BIM modelling for architecture design
Re: [Discussion] A different approach to Arch modelling (Arch Assembly?)
Thanks ! I attempted to learn from your code when you started developing but I am far from understanding it, probably still not now.
I understand you use Part Wedge, I am reading the thread from the beginning again but haven't found where are your codes now. Can you help pointing it please ?
In a discussion and test with @JQL on Attachment / MapMode, we tested 'NormalToEdge' which works somehow.
Re: [Discussion] A different approach to Arch modelling (Arch Assembly?)
https://github.com/yorikvanhavre/BIM_Wo ... rchobjects
Here, but dont get too fixed about part wedge: geometry generation Is going to be split out of the object in a separate plug-able module
Here, but dont get too fixed about part wedge: geometry generation Is going to be split out of the object in a separate plug-able module
follow my experiments on BIM modelling for architecture design
Re: [Discussion] A different approach to Arch modelling (Arch Assembly?)
Thanks, I just have a look at how Part Wedge looks. I try to make a Wedge with 0mm in z-direction to be make a Plane but it is not successful.carlopav wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:18 am https://github.com/yorikvanhavre/BIM_Wo ... rchobjects
Here, but dont get too fixed about part wedge: geometry generation Is going to be split out of the object in a separate plug-able module
Note @yorik advised IFC need a base Face and Extrusion, just wondering if there is similar tool in Part that help to do a Plane / Face. Currently, ArchWall almost work out every coordinate of the base face, make a Polygon, and a Face out of the Polygon.
Re: [Discussion] A different approach to Arch modelling (Arch Assembly?)
Why doing that?
That's only one of the possibile descriptions of geometry:Note @yorik advised IFC need a base Face and Extrusion, just wondering if there is similar tool in Part that help to do a Plane / Face. Currently, ArchWall almost work out every coordinate of the base face, make a Polygon, and a Face out of the Polygon.
https://standards.buildingsmart.org/IFC ... dmodel.htm
And again, this was used Just for testing purpouses. It's super Easy to change It in whatever else would be required.
follow my experiments on BIM modelling for architecture design
Re: [Discussion] A different approach to Arch modelling (Arch Assembly?)
Thanks for the information. IFC is difficult for me
Re: [Discussion] A different approach to Arch modelling (Arch Assembly?)
hey @realthunder, your experimental renderer it's just awesome! Look how walls are visually joined also without performing resource-intensive boolean operations! wowrealthunder wrote: wow!
Just a small remind to eventually take into account architectural design needings when you proceed with development. Here a small bullet list at least to my humble opinion:
- some objects need to be joined (walls), other need to distinguish themselves (look at the unwanted joining between window and wall);
- would be nice if every object could define it's own section pattern;
- walls are one hard thing to represent, perhaps it would be desirable if an object can be extended with a dedicated section visualization, so we could display wall layers and their particular joining.
thanks for your hard work!
carlo
follow my experiments on BIM modelling for architecture design
Re: [Discussion] A different approach to Arch modelling (Arch Assembly?)
Just a reminder to me.
Perhaps a better way to keep the loose structure of Arch and the IFC structure of placements chains would be to adopt the Part::Attachment system for all arch objects.
so Building->Storey->Wall->Opening->Windows can define their relative placements in the Attachment property and keeping their global placement in the Placement property. doing so all the objects will still be in the same coordinate space, but they could move accordingly, and they could keep in clear the same placement they display in IFC.
Based on how a wall would be defined, the inserts could be attached to the wall itself or on it's base.
I think we could also implement an object or a geometry generator for the wall object to match IfcWallStandardCase (reusing part of the code of this forum topic), like BlenderBIM do, a more rigid definition of the wall that can be optional, but can be helpful to edit IFC data seamlessly. Same for IfcElementOpening. * Important that the structure in which the data is stored do not become a burden on the user workflow, but helps the user to keep the tree tidy.
Perhaps a better way to keep the loose structure of Arch and the IFC structure of placements chains would be to adopt the Part::Attachment system for all arch objects.
so Building->Storey->Wall->Opening->Windows can define their relative placements in the Attachment property and keeping their global placement in the Placement property. doing so all the objects will still be in the same coordinate space, but they could move accordingly, and they could keep in clear the same placement they display in IFC.
Based on how a wall would be defined, the inserts could be attached to the wall itself or on it's base.
I think we could also implement an object or a geometry generator for the wall object to match IfcWallStandardCase (reusing part of the code of this forum topic), like BlenderBIM do, a more rigid definition of the wall that can be optional, but can be helpful to edit IFC data seamlessly. Same for IfcElementOpening. * Important that the structure in which the data is stored do not become a burden on the user workflow, but helps the user to keep the tree tidy.
follow my experiments on BIM modelling for architecture design
Re: [Discussion] A different approach to Arch modelling (Arch Assembly?)
Can you elaborate slightly your thoughts ?carlopav wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 10:20 am Perhaps a better way to keep the loose structure of Arch and the IFC structure of placements chains would be to adopt the Part::Attachment system for all arch objects.
so Building->Storey->Wall->Opening->Windows can define their relative placements in the Attachment property and keeping their global placement in the Placement property. doing so all the objects will still be in the same coordinate space, but they could move accordingly, and they could keep in clear the same placement they display in IFC.
Thought sometime ago to addExtension('Part::AttachExtensionPython', None) to Arch Objects :-
(for better and intuitive placement currently implemented in SketchArch wb without Attachment Extension)
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 10#p357291
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=30037
Re: [Discussion] A different approach to Arch modelling (Arch Assembly?)
thx for the links, always inspiring
not possible, sorry, i should try to code something to have it more clear. As soon as i'll have some spare time to invest i'll report back...
follow my experiments on BIM modelling for architecture design