PDA

View Full Version : Wood Framing Walls Extension Review



cadclips
2010-02-07, 04:28 PM
Ah oh,

I have been through a 13-14 page thread here that touches on the new Wood Framing Walls Extension as part of the Subscription Advantage Pack ( http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=109258&highlight=wood+framing+walls ). This thread goes off on a few tangents so I thought I'd start a fresh thread that discusses the Wood Framing Extension once it gets installed and utilized.

First of all I have created a blog post here that includes some images and a CADclip video tutorial > http://revitrocks.blogspot.com/2010/01/revit-wood-framing-walls-extension.html

This extension is not 100% ready for market use YET . . . but it has huge potential. It works, but it is cumbersome to use and has a few fundamental glitches that need to get fixed after you get it up and running. Make sure you have the wood material loaded and make all framing walls load bearing.

Number 1 problem is the ability for this app. to differentiate between 'wall thickness' and 'core thickness'. It places the studs 'centered' in the wall thickness where we really want the studs centered in the 'core thickness'. This is pretty much a show stopped. However I have a feeling it's not a difficult fix. Once that gets done we're off to the races. This observation is readily visible in the app. dialog box.

Number 2 problem (as I discovered) is when you try to duplicate the O.T.B. structural framing member families to hard code dimensions to the framing cross section ie: 2 x 4 = 1 7/8" x 3 7/8" (38 x 89) etc. The app. seems to prefer using 'User defined framing parameterization' framing profiles rather than the 'revit project active families'. The actual naming of these two options is confusing to say the least because the user defined profiles are actually the ''revit project active families'' and not the one that says 'user defined'. Either way it causes down stream problems unless you just let the app. make the profiles automatically based on the wall thickness. (Tricky one to explain in words.)

Number 3 problem is the tedious process of applying the framing specifications to each and every wall and opening. There is no way to specify the framing (headers, sills, kings) to 'all selected door openings' or 'all selected window openings'. You have to go through each and every wall in the project. I soon discovered that with a simple 1200 sq ft bungalo it took me FOR EVER and you can see from the posted images I still missed some walls because the top plates are rotated the wrong way (or shall I say . . . the DEFAULT way). Who uses a top plate rotated vertically . . . . come on people . . . get with the building code).

Number 4 problem is the fact that you need to 'rotate' the opening headers and sills even though the image shows it oriented the right way. Seeing as the header has Profile 1 and profile 2 this can be very confusing as you try to bumble you're way through this learning process. The default profiles should at the very least get placed as seen in the dialog box.

Number 5 problem is Tee connections. These show up ramdomly where there is no Tee and don't get placed where there are Tee's.

Number 6 problem is wall corner connections. They just don't cleanup properly at the top and bottom plate consistantly. I tried playing with my wall corner joins with no better results.

Number 7 problem is 'units' . OMG The app. uses the Project Units and converts everything to the Units 'round off' of say /32 or /8 etc. AND you cannot enter units in decimal form as in 1.5". It simply will not allow you to vear from the project units. If you specify 1 7/8" it will convert that to say . . . 1 28/32". Weird but true.

What you end up doing is defining each wall framing configuration and then deleting all the framing it creates and then doing it again. . . .and again . . . and again . . . and yes again . . . until it FINALLY gives you what you want. In he mean time you may find it creates duplicate framing members occupying the same space or creating no framing at all, but thinks it is actually there. The thing is the framing configuration seems to be saved somewhere externally (and not as a property of the wall) and you can delete the framing entirely, save and close the file, open the file back up and the wall will remember how you wanted it framed.

It will allow you to tweak the framing by using the grips to stretch a single framing member but it causes problems too.

In the end this app. has SUPER potential but it's really only 75% complete at best. . . . in true Autodesk fashion (even though this is not their app. (which is another topic altogether) ) they'll let us test it out and then report back with the bugs (DOH!) .

Gadget Man
2010-02-08, 06:27 AM
... make all framing walls load bearing...

Thank you for your in-depth analysis. That's very helpful. Just out of curiosity, what happens if none of your internal walls are load bearing? Don't they get the framing done? Or do they have to be made load bearing and end up (like in your pictures) with the huge heads (beams) above the openings (which is NOT correct)?

Once uppon a time, while I was still working in Cadsoft Build, I was using its wall framing tool. Although this tool (as many others) was quite good and pretty automatic, it was more as an experiment than anything else, as no matter how simple or complicated the design was, an experienced wall detailer (working in the same company) was always faster doing this job, using his own dedicated software (can't remember the name) with some manual calculations... I think that for a long time yet, it's going to be the same scenario here... There are some dedicated programs out there, used by dedicated specialist framing detailers, who will always do this job much faster, more accurately and (usualy) cheaper. I'm not holding my breath out for this add-on, really...

trombe
2010-02-08, 08:34 AM
Hi,
don't mean to hijack your very good crit of this somewhat disastrous tool, especially because it is obviously really valid and probably valuable.

Can I just ask why the arch industry in the US needs to provide this sort of information to anyone at all ? Here in NZ, Designers, Architects, Draughtsmen / women, are the principal suppliers of Drawings and Specifications. there are really no other groups undertaking this work now (there used to be).

We would not dream of telling a Carpenter / Builder / Contractor, or Fabricator / Pre-Cutter / Pre-Nailer, where to put a stud except where the NZ Standards might not explicitly state, or the Engineer has not stated and it is appropriate or necessary to be clear about a particular piece of work.
The Standards generally, explicitly cover off wood framing for Non Specific Design (for instance) . So if its not a factor of the above, either the Carpenter or the Pre-Nailers, successfully determine where each relevant framing member needs to be and other than for lintel sizes, general stud sizes (wind zones / dynamic loading, earthquake, height static loading etc) we leave it alone because we can, and because our Carpenters, are trained on what to do and when to do it and mostly, they do it well.

It does seem that is the US and some other jurisdictions, the Architect /Designer / Draughtsmen / women and others, have to supply a whole framing layout for the building.
Is this true ?
And if so, I can then appreciate that this work is actually core work and if this is core work, then you need this tool to actually do, what it needs to do to create a full framing layout in 3D that is accurate and creatively flexible so as to be able to correctly form things like cripple hips, b*****d hips (those that do not lie 45 degrees true in plan) , and a wide range of cut outs, let ins, doubling up, raking cuts, junctions in larger sized ridge beams and the like.
Can you confirm that this is in fact what you are required to provide as your core work ?
thanks.
trombe

cadclips
2010-02-08, 03:36 PM
To reply to Jetisart,

'Yes' you MUST make ALL walls load bearing before the app. will let you apply any framing and NO you can actually configure the framing to do what ever you want as far as headers and plates. My image is overkill as you have indicated. The families used to create the framing are of category 'Structural Framing', hense the need to make them 'load bearing'..

To reply to Trombe,

I agree. In Canada as far as I have seen you do NOT tell the framer where to put every stud, blocking, header etc. I never have. It's covered in the spec. and the building code requirements. But I have been asked by many US customers and also Asian customers how to show wall framing elevations. For some reason they want an elevation of each wall showing all internal framing. Not something I have ever provided in my 25 years of drafting.

The studs, joists and trusses are all covered by notes and specs. I do not model every stud, joist and truss. That is what we call 'shop drawings' and are provided by the manufacturer or supplier. These drawing are submitted to the architect and or engineer for legal / official approval, signed off and then included as part of the overall construction package.

If you are building modular buildings with wall panels I could see this app. being very useful.

zenomail105021
2010-02-09, 08:54 AM
I've been a stick frame spec builder for 25 years or so and have never supplied framing drawings. The carpenter/framers always know the rules and codes. Any little anomalies are worked out on the site. Any out-of-the-ordinary situations can be detailed. However, for the fun of it, I have played with the Wood Frame Extension, found it severely lacking and just too much damn trouble to fool with (are these people ever embarassed with shoving out such tripe out the door?) but if they ever got it right I might find a way to use it. I admit that it would be pretty neat. But, they need to add trusses/rafters to make it complete!

Bill Maddox

cadclips
2010-02-09, 02:55 PM
I could not possibly agree more. Especially about the 'embarassing tripe' part. Autodesk would be wise to pull this application from the shelf (aka Toyota) and save face before the term 'REVIT Extension' looses all meaning. This app. does far more damage than good.

Is this a good concept ? . . . Sure but is this some sort of test to see if we are alive out here in the real world.

Should Autodesk be allowed to market this as some sort of 'value added' aspect of REVIT . . . . no way Jose.

Well, I've come this far so I might as well track down these 'Wood Framing Wall Extension' software developers and see what they have to say for themselves. Stay tuned . . . . : )

jarosa
2010-02-09, 11:13 PM
The real value of the framing extension is truly for the modular panel builders; visually showing the stud layout so that each panel lays out properly in the field. That being said, as a contractor and a designer, we come into some situations that maybe would be nice to display with framing members showing, say a hold down so we can show visually why and where an anchor bolt would be placed from the corner so that the hold down aligns next to a stud.... Then again a drafting view would probably do just as well...........Beyond that, "framing" the whole house is not necessary.

DG, Nice video as usual, though.

cadclips
2010-02-10, 02:27 AM
I took a shot and contacted the customer service people here > www.bimware.com because it had signs of their handi work but I got a quick reply that said "No we are not the developer, as far as I know the extension was developed internally by autodesk".

When you use this app. it sure doesn't resemble the look or feel of a program developed by the same people who develop REVIT and I'd be very interested to know who the programmers are.

Having said that I've never been one to bite the hand that feeds and autodesk has been paying my tab since R9 so I won't flog this dead horse any longer : ) . . . on to bigger and better things !

DoTheBIM
2010-02-11, 04:56 PM
If you are building modular buildings with wall panels I could see this app. being very useful. We are panel design and when I tried this extension all I felt like doing was... :banghead:. Then need for this app is for design build firms. We do everything in house. We have a truss manufacturing and panel manufacturing under one roof. We design from napkin idea to pack it in a open top trailer and set it on site with a crane on the back of the truck. then the framers/subs put it all together like a puzzle. We use one program for building design layout, then trace what we need in a panel design program, then trace what we need in a truss program. All load paths under the trusses are manually done. We so want an all in one program, but thats a lot of data to manage. I'd just settle for the programs to talke to each other intelligently.

For those that don't understand why anyone would want to show this information. Try working with unskilled labor, foreigners that don't speak the language, and any number of other factors that are no longer the normal way of working. This is the excuse that is usually presented, but I think by not demanding skilled labor and undercutting good labor with this practice we are dumbing down the skill set that used to be the norm. It's so frustrating to keep having to add more detail in less time, just to accommodate laziness... but that's been the trend for quite some time and I don't see it changing.

Agreed Autodesk should pull that extension and rethink their strategy in that area. I'd sooner draw 2D uncoordinated drawings than try to manage data in that extension. Seems too much of the flow is designed around computer logic rather than practical experience.

iankids
2010-02-12, 08:41 PM
When it was first released in the advantage pack I thought it would be a handy tool to have from time to time.

However, after trying a few times, I came to the conclusion that it was at best a work in progress - could be a neat (albeit minor), tool but needs to be far easier to control and far more intuative.

as DotheBim noted, "Seems too much of the flow is designed around computer logic rather than practical experience."

Ian

keyp
2010-08-27, 12:43 PM
Ian,
I have been playing around with this for several hours now and can get everything to work except the framing keeps centering itself on the interior side of the core. I have gone into the original wall and moved the location line to center of core, exterior face of core, etc, and no change. Did you ever get this figured out? if so, can you tell me how?

Thanks

/Hi,

In the first dialog box when the wood framing tool starts, there is a drop down menu on the right hand side of the screen which is currently set to "default"

When you click the arrow it will display the entire structure of your wall. Change from default to "structure" and then once you have changed the size of the framing member, the frame slots into the timber frame part of the wall.

As it is referencing the wall structure, you need to ensure that it is correctly set up in the first instance.

Cheers,


Ian

iankids
2010-08-27, 10:16 PM
Ian,
I have been playing around with this for several hours now and can get everything to work except the framing keeps centering itself on the interior side of the core. I have gone into the original wall and moved the location line to center of core, exterior face of core, etc, and no change. Did you ever get this figured out? if so, can you tell me how?

Thanks

/Hi,

In the first dialog box when the wood framing tool starts, there is a drop down menu on the right hand side of the screen which is currently set to "default"

When you click the arrow it will display the entire structure of your wall. Change from default to "structure" and then once you have changed the size of the framing member, the frame slots into the timber frame part of the wall.

As it is referencing the wall structure, you need to ensure that it is correctly set up in the first instance.

Cheers,


Ian


Just a couple of picture to show what is noted above.

Ian