This issue could be related to my inexperience, but am I missing something with regards to the way walls are being represented?
I draw a wall, and select “Internal Only” with 70mm wide timber frames, the default materials are 10mm Gyprock on either side with a termite barrier. The result is a wall that is only 70mm wide, not 90mm. And the Gyprock seems to not appear on the outside of the frames. The Termite barrier seems to not appear at all.
Is this an issue with what I am doing or perhaps misunderstanding?
HI Tony, we can add the thickness to the wall lining, the reason we have not is due to the dimensioning in plan view. You are correct with what you say and it is something that is very easy for us to turn on if the general consensus goes that way.
The technical reason why we did not do this was purely dimensioning. I you dimension the plan up with 90mm walls the material supplier and order would turn up on site as 90mm wall framing therefore the finished size of the wall would now be 110mm or 116 if using 13mm wall lining.
You can see the termite barrier on the base of the base of the wall if you look at the underside or turn off the layers in the layer menu.
Can you let me know what the benefits would be in drawing the lining thickness for your particular needs? I am happy to consider turning this on or even having a check box in the menu to choose your particular preference.
Thanks for posting, it is a good question. If the reason you want this is so you do not see the frame simply go to layers and turn off the frame.
My main reason for this is to end up with a true representation and correctly dimensioned model that has all elements properly BIM tagged. This flows on to allow for detailed wall section cutaways, accurate internal room dimensioning etc.
Usually I assign elements I don’t want to appear on a Plan Viewport in Layout to a Layer in SU that is then turned off. This way, your framers will arrive onsite with the correct width frames, but you can view the design and see the frames with the 13mm lining as well. Having linings correctly dimensioned and assigned to specific layers allows for more accurate modelling.
I have just purchased and installed PlusSpec today (New Zealand user). I would agree with TDC on being able to show the “true” thickness of walls for accurate modelling and take off needs. I would also find this of value on external walls as well… particularly in my case I would like to be able to spec the thickness of exterior cedar weather boards in a variety of styles (rusticated, bevel back etc.)… this would make the model much more accurate when showing windows and doors as the model and or associated renderings would better portray the real size/depth of all elements. Maybe have the materials over the studs on a separate layer for easy turn off and on for dimensioning purposes.
Thanks guys, as I mentioned we can do it and I agree with the new layer to enable us to control plan views for dimensioning reason. There is a fine line between how much detail and and how little detail to put in. If you are looking to do detailed sections in the short term I suggest mining into the wall lining and CTRL push pull to your desired thickness. I just did it now it took me about 5 seconds, I can make a video if that helps?
I personally am torn by the situation. The main reason PlusSpec works so efficiently is due to optimisation of geometry which essentially makes Sketchup work faster. If your main reason for wanting plasterboard thickness is cross section details then I would be more inclined to leave it the way that it is. It is possible to go right down to the thickness of lining plus thickness of setting compound and every nut bolt and screw yet the negative repercussions on a larger scale greatly out weigh the visual benefit. A good example of the negative effect is a 1400 room hotel I just designed. The total model size was under 7 meg yet the edge and face count was large, giving rudimentary products like internal lining would have render the model unusable on any computer with less than 4 gig of RAM and an I5 processor.
My main aim with PlusSpec is to reduce the cost to the end user and that includes the hardware cost associated with buying a computer. In saying that this is a democracy and if I get enough people asking I may revisit.
Thanks for asking guys & ill keep it in mind yet at the moment I have to go with the general consensus.
I am not sure if this helps with the cladding I use it when looking to do rendering it works fantastically. http://www.rubysketch.com/brands/weathertex or use the cube icon on your PlusSpec tool bar and
Yes I can see why you have taken the approach you have… Sketchup models could get out of hand rather quickly… it’s a pity Sketchup hasn’t been ported as a 64bit piece of software yet… that would give it a truly new lease of life and the grunt power to handle more complex models efficiently.
Coincidentally, I spent several hours this morning experimenting with push/pulling existing layers within the constructed PlusSpec walls to arrive at varying finish thicknesses… and yes it is a viable workaround. I actually took the whole experimenting process in another direction and used the wall tool to build 'framed" roof spaces… I like “pushing the envelope” with my software tools.
Also, over time I have created many weatherboard profile components for use in Sketchup. What and or how would one go about making these in to generic full RubySketch/PlusSpec BIM estimateable materials?
If you would like to send me an example I can have a look for you Zorro. If you add a bit of this post in an email reply to the main email address I will get back to you as soon as I can. Apologies in advance for delays, I have a lot going on at the moment, I will get back to you though.
Thanks for commenting.
Thanks Mortone, glad to have you here.
I did not know you guys did it that way in the USA. In the short term open the component and push pull the face. I will need some time to think about the best way to work with layers to get the ball rolling.
The answer may be to have an interior architects version. In this version we would concentrate on colours and finishes. We have the ability to add in architrave and skirting and add profiles yet we have not implemented as we were starting to get too many faces and edges on large multi res projects.
Currently you can fit out a 1000 room hotel and have it work on the average spec computer with 8 gig of ram. Whilst doing a bill of materials. If we add in complex architraves and finished that number could quickly reduce to 200 rooms on a similar computer.
If you have requests for this particular version feel free to start another post and I will add it to the list of things to consider.
… This is just the beginning…
