Non-vertical walls

[doe]

they have this in archicad, and i've been asking for this in revit since about version 6 or 7...

[William Troeak]

This would be great! It would save me a lot of time and effort in creating the Revit models that I work on.

This topic needs to be beat like a drum until Autodesk gets tired of hearing about it and just gives us what we want.

Great post cliff collins!

[cliff collins]

*bump to top*.............

Oh--and anyone who voted NO--please explain.

cheers..............

[twiceroadsfool]

I havent voted, because there are too many variables in the mix.

Sure, MORE options would always be great... But simply saying *i would use it* or *i wouldnt* isnt possible until i know more about how (theroetically) they would behave.

1. How would the react to location lines, would location lines be at the base or at some specified height?

2. How will Stacked walls and Curtain walls behave with such a thing?

3. What happens at the tops and bottoms of the walls? Perpendicular to the face, or flat against the ground? What happens when the walls are attached to other objects?

4. (Terrified) Wall joins? Against vertical walls or walls that arent complimentary to the wall in question?

5. The ongoing question of hosted elements. How will THEY behave on these new walls?

I dont ask to be difficult, but all of these would SERIOUSLY affect if id use the new tool. Liken it to Legend Views. So the tool is there, but its undeveloped enough that i dont use them at all.

Its hard to say id use it without knowing how it would work. Those factors above might mitigate that wall by face is still a better option, or not...

[cliff collins]

Aaron,

I agree--there are real technical problems which will need to be addressed
before this tool can be REAL.

That said--when you step away and look at the wholistic state of the industry and BIM--
we all claim to have these incredibly powerful new tools--but when asked a basic question like "how do I make a wall non-verticle" and the rhetoric is a reply such as yours---the average new or even advanced user will say " hmmmm....I don't care WHY it can't do that--I just want to be able to do it because it is required in my daily workflow.
I'll just go do it in SU ( or other modeling program where such tasks are simple and direct. ) But this exactly what we DON"T want!!

I am very tired of having to revert to "bandaid solutions" for very simple tasks such as this.

To be fair, I'll try to suggest some solutions to your concerns:

1. How would the react to location lines, would location lines be at the base or at some specified height?

Location lines would remain the same--Interior, Center, Exterior etc.

2. How will Stacked walls and Curtain walls behave with such a thing?

They would tilt--just like we want them to!!!!!!!!!! Imagine that!!!

3. What happens at the tops and bottoms of the walls? Perpendicular to the face, or flat against the ground? What happens when the walls are attached to other objects?

The geometry would join/miter--just like to angled walls in PLAN do. You could even have a tool like "edit wall joins" for Butt, Miter, etc. ( like we already have for PLANS.)

4. (Terrified) Wall joins? Against vertical walls or walls that arent complimentary to the wall in question?

The geometry would join with the aid of new tools like the above.
Let's face it---how we do this now is a joke--"make a generic model,
with some voids, and cut/join geometry"" blah blah--or "Make a Mass, then convert the face to a wall""---then what? Now I have my sloped wall--but I still have the same joinery issues you raise!!

5. The ongoing question of hosted elements. How will THEY behave on these new walls?

Hmm... some New Family tools for making hosted objects attach correctly to a sloped host, perhaps?? Attach extrusions to sloped reference planes/lines, where an angle to host can be specified, or automatically attached.

I don't have all the answers--I am not a programmer, and never will be.
I'm an architect who is paying for the world's best software--and I just want it to WORK!!
I think most users would agree.

I think the Factory needs to invent NEW tools/methods to be able to accomplish things such as this. Instead of falling back on the status quo state of the programming....
( sounds like we may just be getting some "free-form modelling tools" in an upcoming release--don't be "terrified"--embrace the exciting brave new world!!!!!!!!! )

Cheers..................................

[twiceroadsfool]

Well, we fundamentally disagree on the issue, i suppose. Its not a big deal.

I wholheartedly discount the "I can do it in SU crew" because SU is nothing. Its fluff. Make believe. Its a planer-no-information-modeler, so (in my humble opinion) i dont care WHAT it can do.

And to be direct- Im NOT disagreeing with you. Maybe i would use the tool, maybe i wouldnt. But i DONT want them to waste development time on a tool that ends up like Legends, where most of us defeat them anyway because its useless.

Ive been told (by many people at autodesk) that the best way for us to get what we want, is to be articulate in explaining what we want. To simply say " i want to slant walls" isnt going to do it for me,and though you tried to address my concerns, you did so with answers that dont really address the concerns. Youre not a programmer, and either am i. But programmers arent architects. So without us knowing what we really want, how can we possibly get it?

1. Location lines- I didnt mean where would they be. Are they at the ground level? Or top? Or specified height? You draw a wall THEN change its base constraint, but its slanted. Does it shift? Or move the location line?

2. Stacked and CW's dont behave normally, and you know that. Stacked with sweeps embedded... What happens where it mitres to the ground? CW's- so all mullions are perpendicular besides the ones at the top and bottom? And how does that panel work in between?

3&4- Ill admit, probably easily solvable. Though, with how intense the processing gets with wall joins, im fearful of complex joins of complex walls and angles, and bringing computers to a halt. BUT, here i DO agree its a non-issue. Thats life.

5. Youre solution here sounds awesome... But thats the thing: Getting this tool alone wont be enough, we'll need a host of tools (no pun intended) to deal with it. But here too, i concede this is an issue regardless.

BTW, dont mistake me as being conservative or *terrified* of new things (well, besides ribbons... shudder). I just dont believe in blanket-requests that get us more stuff we cant use. FWIW, i dont consider Wall by face a *workaround*. Its clunky, but it works as intended. If we dont like the way it works, wed better KNOW what we want... Or we'll get more clunk.

And seriously, Skecthup is a WEAK comparison, until it actually has some reality to its modeling.

[cliff collins]

YES--37

NO--5 ( anyone care to explain WHY they voted NO?


cheers...................................................

[dpasa]

The reason CAD products exist, is to help architects with what they want to design and build... It is never ment to make an architect think like a CAD application and design what the app can make... Thinking how to "translate" a solid as a layered wall (which btw is not so difficult imo for most cases) is exactly the wrong way of thinking... After all, I would prefer to loose the accuracy of my schedules (which happens anyway sometimes) and be able to make what I need and want.

[cliff collins]

Bump....again.

Gee, think I want this to get some attention?!

[twiceroadsfool]

I voted no.... But i explained why above.