4dProof Blog

What is Important in a Library Part?

March 24, 2018 Leave a Comment

One of the great aspects of ARCHICAD is the simplicity of developing new & custom library parts. But sometimes, in fact most times, close enough is good enough. Before spending time to develop new custom objects, ask yourself, ‘do I need this specific object, or is an out of the box library part close enough?’

What we need in a library part:

-A library part needs to contain the correct and accurate information, first and foremost. Now with ARCHICAD’s Properties and Classifications, we have all the information management we need for all elements, so no scripted parameters are necessary.

-A library part needs to be the correct size. The overall dimensions and clearances need to be included in any library part, and almost all AC Library parts include parametric size and clearance parameters.

-A library part needs to be located properly. Hotspots can be scripted for easy placement, but for the most part, ARCHICAD objects include all the necessary hotspots for placement and adjustment.

-Lastly, a library part should be as close to the specified manufacturer’s model as possible for documents and visualization. This is the lowest priority.

I routinely build custom objects for clients. Sometimes, I am able to provide a recommendation for an object already available. Some times, requests require a specific manufacturer or detailed model for appliances, furniture, plumbing fixtures, etc. As an example, I have recently been asked to model a specific bath tub; a custom concrete tub, generally oval with a slight taper to the outside faces. There is a very close approximation already available in the ARCHICAD Library:

The out of the box tub is so close to what the consultant proposed, it hardly made sense to make anything custom. But the interior designer wanted a rendering with their exact design, so a custom tub was built. The out of the box object met all but the last requirement listed above; that is, precise visualization.

In this case, the client needed to see the 23º slope to the outside of the tub, so a custom object was made. In most cases however, plumbing fixtures can be a close approximation, or even a completely different object, just set to the correct size and located correctly. Most of us have done this all the time with appliances. You rarely need to see the exact refrigerator, or range, or dishwasher. The AC Library parts are generally good enough. But if the client is trying to decide if Wolf or Viking is the correct decision, and they are willing to pay for the services, why not make the custom object?

Convert a Morph to a Morph

February 1, 2018 Leave a Comment

Working with morphs can be tedious and frustrating, especially as the model’s level of detail starts to increase. For this reason, I typically start modeling with other model primitives (walls, slabs, beams, columns), then convert to morphs when at the appropriate level of detail.

profile beam cabinets converted to morph

In this example, I have a bank of cabinets that I used a profiled beam to model. After the beams were converted to morphs and cleaned up a little, I wanted to run the backsplash behind the cook top to the ceiling level. There are many ways to do this, some easier than others.

For this example, I just added a plane and pulled it through the ceiling/roof plan with the pet palette option. Once the morph was extended through the roof, I just clipped it off with the Solid Element Operations palette.

While I could have left the morph trimmed to the roof, I know from past experiences that excessive use of SEO’s can slow models down, some times to the point of the file being non-responsive and borderline useless. I try to be careful about the use of SEO’s for this reason, and favor basic model geometry edits or building material priorities to define element’s shapes wherever possible.

There is a simple trick to eliminating the trimming association on a morph without loosing the morph geometry. All you need to do is right click the morph and convert it to a morph.

You can use this same trick to essentially sculpt away portions of a morph with solid element operations, then re-solidify and disassociate the morph from the operators, making it a lot easier to create complex morph geometries.

ARCHICAD Schedules to Check Shop Drawings

January 21, 2018 4 Comments

Recently, I was given a set of truss drawings for a project I have been working on. They didn’t quite look right, so I brought them into my project using the profile manager, applied the profiles to walls (beams would work too), and dropped them into the model based on the manufacturers layout plan and my AC model’s plate heights.

Fig 01. Custom Profiles for truss design

Once placed, it became immediately obvious that the trusses were way off.

Fig 02. Manufacturers truss is too tall for proposed roof design

Fig 03. Manufacturers truss does not match roof slope or heel height

To check the manufacturers trusses against the modeled geometry, I simply took sections at various areas of the model, copied the truss & roof elements and pasted them into the profiles (right click and choose edit selected profile). Then redraft the profile as it should show in section over the top of the original profile:

Fig 05. Required profile laid over manuf. profile

The last step is to relay the inconsistencies back to the truss manufacturer. This can be done very quickly and easily by setting up a schedule to show the truss profiles. For this exercise, my schedule settings were as follows:

And the resulting schedule placed to a layout looks like this:

By annotating the schedule’s preview items, you can even add notes and dimensions for how the trusses should be adjusted.

Fig 08. Enlarged view of Schedule on Layout

ARCHICAD 21’s First “Work-Around”

June 22, 2017 6 Comments

To call this a work-around is a stretch, because this is really how you should be doing this from now on!

ARCHICAD21 is now available for download, and it is a very exciting version! Earlier today, a user asked if the latest installment allowed sections to read zone stamps. Sadly, it doesn’t. But I told the user that I would look into writing a new label tool that would label the zone of elements placed in the section. Then I remembered, this version of ARCHICAD already does that!

In the example below, I have a 3 zone sample model with furniture and other various parts placed that could be labeled.

Step 3: Select Label Tool, and Choose Text/Autotext Label

Step 4: Apply Label to Content in Section, Set Autotext to “Related Zone Name”

This label is now dynamically linked to content placed in that section. If the Zone Name changes in plan, the label will change content in section. If the content moves to a new zone, the room name will shift with it and reflect the new zones name. If the object is deleted, the label will be deleted. If the object is switched to a new object, but the zone name remains the same, the room name in section will remain unaffected.

I tested this out with all design tools in ARCHICAD 21, and was able to effectively label zones in the section using any placed element except floors (they do not recognize zone association), and walls (they only associate to the first placed zone they abut). Morphs, columns, beams, shells and objects all work very well for this “work-around”.

BIM Swiss Army Knife

April 24, 2017 1 Comment

I present a bit of an analogy to you. ARCHICAD can be your BIM Swiss Army Knife. With ARCHICAD, you can model buildings, site context, landscape, structure, mechanical, you can use it for visualization, construction documents, presentation, renderings, animation, sun studies, and even some basic energy studies. At the Las Vegas BIM Conference 2017, we even saw a construction admin using ARCHICAD as a PDF reader/writer for document coordination! It really does a lot for a single tool.

What can’t you do with a great multi-tool?

But like any good multi-tool, ARCHICAD can’t be expected to perform miracles. You wouldn’t try to whittle a masterpiece, wire an entire house, or endure a wilderness survival show with a Swiss Army knife. You may be able to, but that would just be crazy. It is equally crazy to expect our BIM tool to do everything we would ever need it to on an consistent level. We don’t try to use it as the sole tool for coordinating complex construction projects, we don’t use it for photorealistic renderings and animations, and it certainly will never replace other tools for tabulating energy performance forecasts.

What ARCHICAD does really well, better than most tools in fact, is it models and documents buildings. Everything else it is capable of is awesome, as long as expectations are tempered by the tools limitations. This is no different than the Swiss Army Knife. This tool is one of the best pocket sized (and pocket safe) wine bottle openers on the market. Everything else it can do is helpful, but not necessarily the best on the market. I have used these multi-tools to work on home wiring projects, fish preparation, and even gardening projects, but not on a professional scale. I have also used ARCHICAD for renderings, energy analysis, mechanical coordination and more; but not on every project, and not with the expectation that the output will be as good as that of people who’s entire focus is in those areas of AEC.

The real message here is, ARCHICAD is one tool in a BIM toolbox. It may be the most used and most useful, and it may even be the only one you go to. But it is still only one tool available. When you look at professional quality renderings, those are rarely produced directly from ARCHICAD, and at the very least involve significant post production. When you look at MEP/Structural coordination efforts of massive construction projects, those normally involve other tools such as Solibri. And the very BIM workflow involves IFC, DWG, and PDF coordination to allow for consultants to bring their tools to the project.

Use Your Tools, Don’t Fight Them

January 8, 2017 2 Comments

Recently, I read a great post by a colleague outlining improvements to his template. This article sparked a series of responses; the most surprising of which was a complaint about the line weights provided by his template. In the commenter’s complaint, he goes on to elaborate that we have lost sight of drafting conventions and drawing styles of days past.

“I think that the importance of line weights in making drawings clear is underrated”

He conjectures that Frank Ching’s detail drafting gives clarity that we do not see in any computer software; that “the importance of line weights in making drawings clear is underrated”. It is true, drawing standards have changed, maybe even slipped in recent years.

This all sounds commendable at first. We shouldn’t lose sight of our previous drawing standards and conventions. But we also shouldn’t blindly follow antiquated standards and conventions without an understanding of where they came from and why we need them now. I see time and again, attempts at getting ARCHICAD drawings to look like they were done with a different tool. Wether it is some forced marker reference, label configuration, dimension tick marks, leader shape, or even line weights; we need to work with our tool not agains it.

Most drafting conventions stem from days when everything was drawn by hand. This meant working towards final drawings while reducing or eliminating the excess work of “redoing” an entire drawing. Some of the conventions come from a need to eliminate redundancy, since these redundancies were manually reviewed and checked. Regardless of the origins of the convention, most do not really apply to our current tools.

I see so many architects and designers fighting their tools, attempting to get the markers to look the way they did when they used a pen/pencil or flat-CAD. So many custom texts typed, lines drawn, and fills added in a drawing to get markers, labels, or annotation to look they way they used to. Dimension strings become broken into an unnecessarily complicated configuration for different “tick styles”, and even text and splines used in place of labels for a very specific and unnecessary drafting convention.

A quick sketch for a remodel design option

Regardless of what your ARCHICAD pet peeve is, you need to learn to get past it, and learn to use your tools, rather than fight against them. Ultimately, clarity of drawings can not be the highest priority any more. Design is supposed to be about the built place, not a pretty image or even the technical drawings. Before we used virtual modeling tools, we were limited by our ability to sketch a single static view and draft contrived 2d documents to relay intent and design. Before we had CAD, we were limited by what we could painstakingly draw by hand. Now, we have a tool that enables us to visualize the reality of place, and we find ourselves fighting for a line weight or annotation convention, and ignoring the power of the tools we have. Our schedules can be fully automated, but we find ourselves fussing with the exact style and appearance of the schedule on the sheet.

I certainly mean no disrespect to some of the great architectural visualizers and documenters of the past. Their drawing and drafting is truly beautiful. But that is the past. Let us move forward, to focus on the beauty of a well constructed and managed BIM model. Let us admire the efficiency of drawing, listing, and labeling automation. Let us look for better ways to present our design and documents, beyond the antiquated 24×36 sheet of plans, sections, elevations, and details; and refocus on the incredible capabilities of our tools. Ultimately, we should be able to ignore the little quirks that don’t allow our drawings to look like the drawings of yore. Remember, the drawings are never as important as the ideas they represent, and drawings may not even be the best way to represent those ideas any more!