Joe_Carrick

1st, 2nd, 3rd Floor Roofs - Show on 1 Plan ?

Recommended Posts

I have a 3 Story House.  There are roofs at each floor level over the areas that are not covered by the floor above.  In some areas the upper floors cantilever beyond the floor below.

 

What's the best way to show a single Roof Plan with the Footprint of each floor?

 

I've done it by showing all the roof planes on the 3rd Floor and copied the Exterior Room Polylines from the 1st and second floors - but that seems a bit tedious.  I really couldn't figure out how to do it using a Reference Layer Set.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a limitation of ref sets.  You can only ref one floor at a time.  For your case....gag gag gag....  you may have to use cad to show roof planes that cannot be referenced.

 

With a two story home,  I can ref anything I want....  in most cases.  As soon as I get a third level,  there is the  potential for limitations on ref sets.

 

Joe,  in the past you have commented that to show a roof on a different lever,  move it up and down....  I do not like your solution,  the reason being,  a roof plane needs to STAY ON A PARTICULAR LEVEL because that is the level the framing will show on the framing plan.  

 

The future solution will be for CA to allow us to have a MMRLS.....  yes,  the MULTIPLE MULTIPLE REF LAYER SETS,  IOW,  the ability to have multiple ref sets for a view sent to layout displaying multiple floors.  X3 gave us the MRLS,  maybe X9 will give us the MMRLS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a limitation of ref sets.  You can only ref one floor at a time.  For your case....gag gag gag....  you may have to use cad to show roof planes that cannot be referenced.

 

With a two story home,  I can ref anything I want....  in most cases.  As soon as I get a third level,  there is the  potential for limitations on ref sets.

 

Joe,  in the past you have commented that to show a roof on a different lever,  move it up and down....  I do not like your solution,  the reason being,  a roof plane needs to STAY ON A PARTICULAR LEVEL because that is the level the framing will show on the framing plan.  

 

The future solution will be for CA to allow us to have a MMRLS.....  yes,  the MULTIPLE MULTIPLE REF LAYER SETS,  IOW,  the ability to have multiple ref sets for a view sent to layout displaying multiple floors.  X3 gave us the MRLS,  maybe X9 will give us the MMRLS.

Scott, 

 

The Roof Framing is only a problem if you rebuild it after changing which floor the Roof is shown on.  It would be nice if that function didn't effect the Framing at all.

 

MMRLS might be a great solution. but I'm not sure how that would work for multiple floors.  Layer Sets are not really tied to any floor other than the one above or below (actually just the previously displayed floor) so some other mechanism would need to be devised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...... Layer Sets are not really tied to any floor other than the one above or below.....

I do not believe this to be so.  If I have a 20 story building,  and I am using the 19th floor as my floor plan,  I can choose to ref floor number 2,  or 3 or 4 or 18 or 20.  It would be great if I could have a ref set for floor 2,  a roof set for floor 3 and each of those floors could have their own unique ref set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I like the MMRLS and it is very much needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh......

 

I missed that capability.  Thanks Scott.  MMRLS would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, before I send in a suggestion (or post it in the suggestions forum) here's my take on the MRLS & MMRLS:

 

1.  Currently there is one Default Reference Layer Set and only one Layer Set can be used as a Reference Layer Set at any time.

2.  The Reference Layer Set can be modified by using Tools>Reference Floors>Change Floor/Reference

3.  Each Layout Box can have a different Reference Layer Set and can Reference a different Floor.

 

That's basically the definition of the current MRLS.

 

A.  It would be nice if it could be extended so that each Layer Set could have a it's own specific Reference Layer Set

B.  It would be nice if the Reference Layer Sets could reference/display Multiple Floors instead of just a single Floor.

C.  It would be nice if more than one Layer Set could be used as a Reference Layer Set at the same time.

 

Does this meet what we need?

Is it more than we need?

Do we only need "B"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have it covered.

 

To cite an example:  If I have a 20 story building,  the 14th floor can have multiple ref sets and each ref set will ref a different floor,  and this 14th floor can be sent to layout with a multitude of ref sets and each ref set may ref a different floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott,

 

So your vote would be for A, B & C ?

 

BTW, if I catch you actually doing a 20 story building ....... :P:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YEP,  A,B,C.  I will never do a 20 story building.  3-STORY max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is actually a MUCH simpler way of doing all this than a MMRLS (which even the current system can confuse people).

 

Right now CA uses Stories as a separate function from Layers.  This creates the need to have a 3rd element we know as the MRLS.  Instead of going 1 step beyond the MRLS, CA should move the opposite direction creating something "below" Layers which would embody what we currently know layers to be.  In Vectorworks they are called "classes", but the name matters not.

 

Doing this allows Stories to reside on Layers, and then layers can have visual settings option similar to "Onion Skins" where you can create any combination of visual options VERY SIMPLY.  When you send something to Layout, you should be able to set visual options there on Layers/Classes to create nearly any "view" you want.

 

Here are some examples of what I mean.

post-75-0-80141800-1440188835_thumb.png

post-75-0-29956600-1440188847_thumb.png

post-75-0-52675100-1440188860_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is actually a MUCH simpler way of doing all this than a MMRLS (which even the current system can confuse people)......

 

You say simpler which often means not as powerful.  I am not sure how much simple the CA system can be.  If CA implements the MMRLS,  we can control what layers are turned on for any floor.  I am not sure how else I would be able to control what I see on any number of floors.

 

If Vectorworks method is better,  maybe CA will take a look at their methodology.  But I do know when someone says something is simpler,  often times that means less control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think Johnny's example of Vectorworks is just a matter of symantics.

Vectorworks "Design Layer" seems to be equivalent to Chiefs "Floor Level".

 

Can't we just get beyond the comparisons between VectorWorks, AllPlan, Revit, etc and Chief Architect?

They are all different and if someone likes one better than the other - then go with that App.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't we just get beyond the comparisons between VectorWorks, AllPlan, Revit, etc and Chief Architect?

To offer another point of view, please don't get beyond the comparisons, I really like to see how other programs treat similar circumstances.

 

I agree Scott, about the perceived 'simplicity' of any program someone's used for many years. One person's simple can be another person's work around nightmare.

 

My own personal opinion from watching videos from Revit and Vectorworks is I see nothing simple in either program. IMO it's only years of study and practice that will make any of these program seem 'simple' but again I really like to see the way other programs work..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you guys ever heard of the investment guru Ray Lucia and his 3 Buckets of Money.   He says you should put your money in 3 separate buckets,  The short term bucket for money you may need tomorrow.  The mid term bucket for money you need in 6 years and then the long term bucket for money you don't need for 10  years. And these monies are investments where the risk is dependent upon when you may need the money.

 

Glenn Woodward is my short term bucket,  if I need a quick answer/solution,  Glenn has the answer.

Joe Carrick is my midterm bucket,  his ideas don't always help me right now,  but when the next release of CA comes out,  Joe Carrick has his mitts all over the update.

Johnny is my long term bucket.  It's great to hear what he has to say,  but what ever he is talking about will not help me for 10 years,  but his input is welcome.

 

Hey,  how is that for an analogy,  not bad eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the market today? I have no buckets left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you guys ever heard of the investment guru Ray Lucia and his 3 Buckets of Money.   He says you should put your money in 3 separate buckets,  The short term bucket for money you may need tomorrow.  The mid term bucket for money you need in 6 years and then the long term bucket for money you don't need for 10  years. And these monies are investments where the risk is dependent upon when you may need the money.

 

Glenn Woodward is my short term bucket,  if I need a quick answer/solution,  Glenn has the answer.

Joe Carrick is my midterm bucket,  his ideas don't always help me right now,  but when the next release of CA comes out,  Joe Carrick has his mitts all over the update.

Johnny is my long term bucket.  It's great to hear what he has to say,  but what ever he is talking about will not help me for 10 years,  but his input is welcome.

 

Hey,  how is that for an analogy,  not bad eh?

Not bad :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah......, I have finally reached my life long goal of being a "short term bucket", something I have strived relentlessly for - it fells very satisfying to have finally reach my goal! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the market today? I have no buckets left.

 

I know it's bad form to laugh at others misfortune...

But I had to LOL @ this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the market today? I have no buckets left.

That's pretty funny, and yes, I too was watching my fortune wither away today. But at least Tiger is in first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not good! I may have to cancel my trip to the UGM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He better win or this is all for nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not good! I may have to cancel my trip to the UGM!

 

I thought Chief was picking up the tab for ya'll.

Why those cheap so and so's. Do you mean

that the "stipend" they offered to supply doesn't

include round trip air fare to Oz?  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think Johnny's example of Vectorworks is just a matter of symantics.

Vectorworks "Design Layer" seems to be equivalent to Chiefs "Floor Level".

Can't we just get beyond the comparisons between VectorWorks, AllPlan, Revit, etc and Chief Architect?

They are all different and if someone likes one better than the other - then go with that App.

Its much more than symantics if you really think about it. Right now the MRLS works since it only has an additional floor to consider, but if you had many floors (MMRLS) and wanted to view certain layers on each floor combined with another floor's layers you would have to make floor specific layers of the same "type" for each floor if you wanted that control.

Going in reverse, you can create sub-layers that relate to a specific layer and yet have the sub-layers all be the same throughout the file and reference-able.

Having used both, I can tell you having a sub-layer level is superior in many ways to the MRLS - not to mention much easier to grasp.

___

Also, not bringing in a comparison of what exists in the market would be a disservice to CA. CA is judged largely upon how it relates to other software...as any product is. I've always acknowledge there are things CA does MUCH better that VW or other apps, which is why I bought a copy. However, there are many things the other apps do MUCH better and sharing that should be a positive thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......Going in reverse, you can create sub-layers that relate to a specific layer and yet have the sub-layers all be the same throughout the file and reference-able.

 

I THINK I UNDERSTAND,  AND IF I DO UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY,  YOU HAVE MADE MY POINT.  WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS ALL THE REF SETS FOR ALL FLOORS ARE ALL THE SAME....  BUT MAYBE I DON'T WANT THAT,  MAYBE I WANT UNIQUE REF SETS DEPENDING ON THE FLOOR I AM REFFING.

Having used both, I can tell you having a sub-layer level is superior in many ways to the MRLS - not to mention much easier to grasp........

 

 

This is getting pretty heavy and I am sure most readers are not understanding what we are talking about....  I barely understand what I am talking about.

 

But if you are correct,  and the method you are referring to is easier than the MRLS and just as flexible,  I am all for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Member Statistics

    27617
    Total Members
    6254
    Most Online
    zzubin
    Newest Member
    zzubin
    Joined