The Global Archicad Community

Stay informed. Get help. Share your knowledge.

Plan, Section, Elevation, Schedule, Layouting...

Moderators: Karl Ottenstein, LaszloNagy, ejrolon, Barry Kelly, Gordana Radonic, nbalogh, mnguyen, gkmethy

What's your opinion about this wish?

Essential (5)
49
80%
Important (4)
10
16%
Average (3)
2
3%
Not important (2)
No votes
0%
Not needed (1)
No votes
0%
#106521
The Floor Plan Cut Plane really needs to be more flexible.

Most of our projects are not on level sites. Changes in a single floor level can range from 0' to 12' difference from one end of the building to the other, yet we still need to show the entire floor as one level for documentation. Currently, the single level Cut Plane just doesn't cut it (pardon the pun).

This really is apparent when working on a multi-unit complex that sits on a sloped site. Maybe 2 out of 10 units will look correct from the settings of the single level Cut Plane.

We need to be able to step up/down the Cut Pane at user-defined points (similar to staggering the Section/Elevation cutline in Plan).

I just spoke with GS Tech Support and was surprised to find that this was never wished for, so they don't realize that there is this major flaw with the Cut Plane. There are many other issues that also need to be addressed, but that is for another post. BTW, I was told that ADT already has this flexibility.
#106525
David Larrew wrote:I just spoke with GS Tech Support and was surprised to find that this was never wished for, so they don't realize that there is this major flaw with the Cut Plane. There are many other issues that also need to be addressed, but that is for another post. BTW, I was told that ADT already has this flexibility.
Glad you started this poll, David. Actually, there were some very strong behind the scenes arguments for this feature after the FPCP first arrived. The design guys in Budapest know that it is a wish...but a poll like this might help emphasize how strongly it is desired.

An inconvenient, and far from perfect (joints/intersections, time involved, etc) workaround is to use multiple views, each with a different FPCP height, and then crop and stack those views on a layout to obtain the desired result.

Cheers,
Karl
#106548
This wish is at the very top of my list as the current project we're working on has a 4' split in two sections of the project. The floor levels in one section are not the floor levels in the other section -- since the story markers are set for one section, the other is not correct. In order to work around I was going to create two building files and ex ref into a site file just to have the stories workable and the resultant views to show doors, cabinets etc correctly. Lots of extra work to make things look correct.

Lew Bishop
Jon Worden Architects
MBP 17" OS X 10.5 AC11 1114US
#106551
Karl Ottenstein wrote:An inconvenient, and far from perfect (joints/intersections, time involved, etc) workaround is to use multiple views, each with a different FPCP height, and then crop and stack those views on a layout to obtain the desired result.
I have a feeling this isn't an easy fix. Even in Microstation, which is very flexible in 3D, are VCPs defined per view - it's part of the view definition and can be graphically defined from another (perpendicular) view.

I find the present state logical when you work, and the combine-on-layout workaround Karl describes above fairly easy. And if you use the view map for navigation after they're defined, it's also pretty convenient to work with.

For me, a true 3D cut option for the floor plan, and above all, free rotation of floor plan windows, has much higher priority.
#106598
David,
A long overdue wish. Hard to believe given the many times problems with multi-level units have been discussed here that one hasn't been posted before.

Karl's posted work-around has worked fine for me so far, but is a lot of set up and views to wade through.
#106603
I have run into similar problem (stepped down plans) one year ago and it gave me a real headache.
Anyway, I was discussing this with GS (they are pretty aware of this issue) and indeed it is not an easy fix. The major problems are (as I can recollect) the way of controlling and updating the section plane in terms of the user interface (3D kinks, recesses etc). Each section plane region would have to have it's own setting in terms of visibility upwards/downwards plus it would take some toll in regards to CPU use (filtering all elements by the section plane region heights). Also, the section plane varies by the storey as well so all of that adds up to huge complexity we would have to face to. Well it would be something for GS UI department to handle, however the task itself looks like an overkill for a feature that is admittedly used but not 'life threatening' in terms of a docs workflow.
#106607
Rob wrote:I have run into similar problem (stepped down plans) one year ago and it gave me a real headache.
Anyway, I was discussing this with GS (they are pretty aware of this issue) and indeed it is not an easy fix. The major problems are (as I can recollect) the way of controlling and updating the section plane in terms of the user interface (3D kinks, recesses etc). Each section plane region would have to have it's own setting in terms of visibility upwards/downwards plus it would take some toll in regards to CPU use (filtering all elements by the section plane region heights). Also, the section plane varies by the storey as well so all of that adds up to huge complexity we would have to face to. Well it would be something for GS UI department to handle, however the task itself looks like an overkill for a feature that is admittedly used but not 'life threatening' in terms of a docs workflow.
Exactly. Each region/step would internally have to be treaded as a view of its own, and then seamlessly joined together in the screen floor plan window.
Admittedly, we have that in sections already, but they are still generated from the model when activated, not truly live.
The way Archicad is built around the live symbolic floor plan gives this another dignity. First, they have to solve the issues of true 3D cuts in floor plans and having more than one floor plan window open simultaneously. Those are heavy wishes on their own and will probably come sooner. I also give rotation of the floor plan a higher priority.
#113485
I agree with this wish. I have similar problems with Stepped Buildings and also with a couple of buildings with varying room heights on either wings.

It might be difficult to execute, But if we can indeed generate multiple plan views of the same storey, by drawing stepped, cut planes in sections (like we can draw section lines on a plan) then it will definitely save a lot of additional work.

If it is too difficult then maybe these could be just plan views with very limited options for actual editing.(so we may need to go to the actual plan view for major editing). Even this would help immensely for a couple of things I am working on right now.
#231515
We are now in 2014 with the release 18 and still nothing has been done about this? Why do we even bother with this forum? Can we please have some clarification on the points raised in this post...
David Larrew wrote:The Floor Plan Cut Plane really needs to be more flexible.

Most of our projects are not on level sites. Changes in a single floor level can range from 0' to 12' difference from one end of the building to the other, yet we still need to show the entire floor as one level for documentation. Currently, the single level Cut Plane just doesn't cut it (pardon the pun).

This really is apparent when working on a multi-unit complex that sits on a sloped site. Maybe 2 out of 10 units will look correct from the settings of the single level Cut Plane.

We need to be able to step up/down the Cut Pane at user-defined points (similar to staggering the Section/Elevation cutline in Plan).

I just spoke with GS Tech Support and was surprised to find that this was never wished for, so they don't realize that there is this major flaw with the Cut Plane. There are many other issues that also need to be addressed, but that is for another post. BTW, I was told that ADT already has this flexibility.