The Global ARCHICAD Community

Stay informed. Get help. Share your knowledge.

Sections/Elevation/3D Document/Worksheets/Details etc., Annotations, Texts, Labeling, Autotext/Project Info, Layouting, Renovation Filters, Graphic Overrides, Revisions/Issues, Printing/Plotting, PDF, Mark-Up, etc.

Moderators: Karl Ottenstein, LaszloNagy, ejrolon, Barry Kelly, gkmethy

By afaria
#309998
Hi everyone,

I would like to ask two questions:
First, it regards the hatches interception of the walls in the attached image. I believe there is no way of improving how they merge but still I would like to have your feedback. I have checked the material hatch orientation option but...

Secondly, the slab has an angle on the break point but in elevation or 3D, there is no break line, which we would love to have.

Any ideas?

Thank you all in advance
Attachments
Tasks 2020-04-21 11-55-49.jpg
#310020
Firstly, your Building Materials have the file set to 'Element Origin' so they follow the rotation of your elements.
So each wall no matter the angle will look the same.
Because of the way walls connect in plan (and 3D) where one wall will cut the other, this is what you will see.

Setting the BM fills to 'Project Origin' will solve the miter issue, but the fills will no longer rotate with the wall, so on certain angle may look strange.

The only way to avoid this completely is to use coloured solid or % hatches.

Secondly, the angle of difference is just too shallow in the slab.
Archicad seems to think the surfaces are in line and therefore will show no join.
I would say this is a bug but it may not be fixable due to the fact that curved surfaces in Archicad are actually a series of straight segments. These straight segments have no joining line, giving the appearance of a curved surface.
Maybe the same is happening here, the angle is below a certain threshold so is being treated as a curved surface (even though it is not).

Even changing the edge surface materials so they are different will not force a line (which I think it should).


Barry.
By afaria
#310058
Thank you Barry.
I agree with all your observations.

And yes we don't want to set hatches to projet origin... Maybe will do a patch over it...

Again thank you very much.
#310122
On the first, I would solve this Wall intersection using a Complex Profiled Column, because it will cut itself from the Wall and their connection will be seamless.
For the Fills I would use a Building Material, which has a Symbol Fill set for its Cut Fill, with the "Fit to Skin" option. That way the orientation of the Fill will follow the direction of the Complex Profile Column skins that represent the Wall Skins.

On the second, i agree with Barry's assessment, I will report this as a bug to GRAPHISOFT.
#310211
Hi,

Thank you very much for raising the issue, and thank you Barry and Laci for answering the first question!

Since Barry and Laszlo have already addressed the first issue, let me share some information about the second issue here. This is a design decision, unfortunately! When the complementary angle of the sides of the slabs is larger than 11.48°, the line is visible. But when it is smaller, the line is invisible.

You can split the slab exactly at that point in order to have the contour visible in 3D. In 2D floor plan, the division line can be hidden by setting the 2D Representation of Connected Slabs on Floor Plan.

I hope this will help you with the issue. Let me know if you have any further questions!

Best regards,
Minh
Last edited by mnguyen on Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
#310334
Thank you all for the great suggestions! They will be shared with the team.
I think for the moment we will keep the slab as one, the pros outway the cons of dealing with several slabs more.
The complex profile I imagine we will definitely do when we move on to a new scale. At this point we are between general cost estimates and just scratching execution, mostly working at 1:200. But it will come.

Again, very pleased with your imputs. Thank you.
#310335
mnguyen wrote:
Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:14 pm
When the complementary angle of the sides of the slabs is larger than 11.78°, the line is visible.

Minh,

Did you want to type 178 degrees? This 11.78 degree sounds like an arbitrary number to me (I might be wrong).
#310336
LaszloNagy wrote:
Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:16 am
Minh,

Did you want to type 178 degrees? This 11.78 degree sounds like an arbitrary number to me (I might be wrong).
Oops, sorry, my bad! I’m not sure whether it should be supplementary or complementary angle? I didn’t study Geometry in English, but the “b” angle here is what I mean.

Image

11.78 is the wrong number. I got it from the developer without double checking. I tested again and can confirm that if the “b” angle is less than 11.48 degree the contour will disappear (and to be honest, I’m not sure why they set it that way :D )
#310359
Thanks Minh,

If you could ask the developer, I would be interested to know why this number. I guess there is a reason. For me the 178 degrees made sense because it is only 2 degrees from 180, which would mean the two sides are in the same plane, so if the angle is less than 2 degrees from that, it would make sense that the line is not displayed.
But this 11.48 degrees? There must be some mathematical reason for it.
#310405
LaszloNagy wrote:
Fri May 01, 2020 2:33 am
Thanks Minh,

If you could ask the developer, I would be interested to know why this number. I guess there is a reason. For me the 178 degrees made sense because it is only 2 degrees from 180, which would mean the two sides are in the same plane, so if the angle is less than 2 degrees from that, it would make sense that the line is not displayed.
But this 11.48 degrees? There must be some mathematical reason for it.
Sure, I will ask them to give me an explanation! 11.48 degrees is surely a strange number!