I am still exploring the possibility to integrate VARQ into a professional workflow.
Today I stumbled upon the following problem:
What is the officially suggested workflow to create printed plans with a different scale / detail level.
In Germany we usually start designing with a 1:200 or 1:100 scale, later on this will change to more detailed plans for construction which are 1:50 and even 1:20 for master details and such.
Obviously each of these plans needs a separate lever of detailing to be readable, just printing out a 1:20 detail in 1:200 will lead to very poor readability, because the numerous details will be compressed and lines separate in 1:20 will basically fuse together in 1:200.
If you look into literature teaching how to correctly draw different kind of construction plans this is addressed by introducing an LOD (Level Of Detail) approach, where the drawn elements are reduced and the lineweights are changed according to the scale of the plan:
Is this currently not possible in VARQ or am I missing something here?
This feature was present in BIM programs 20 years ago, I would say this is a basic and essential feature.
Hi Andreas,
Unfortunately, VisualARQ doesnāt handle Levels of Detail for the plan view or section view representation of the geometry. Itās a feature planned for future versions so Iāll keep you posted with this development.
Hi Francesc, thank you for the information, I really hope this is high on the priority list, because as I already mentioned IMHO this is something really essential.
Especially so since printing out decent looking plans for the early design phases (1:200, 1:100) of a project is pretty much impossible in the current state and this is the very phase I would consider VARQ being used the most.
Levels of detail match perfectly with Revit/Archicad? approach of detail views:
using Rhino language, these would be āfloating viewportsā with a LOD/scale that can be handled by themselves virtually, and printed only when placed inside.
Currently, in my Revit user mind limitation, I create a āwork layoutā together with layer manager approaches just to mimic Revitās approach, but it gets complicated with many details.
A list of these āvirtual viewportsā could be organized by scale, time (original, phase 1, phase 2,ā¦), inherit layer definitions and help include this notion of evolution without having to duplicate elements.
There may be another way to work without turning off / hiding main layers (which affect all layout drawings) but I am sure IĀ“m not using Rhino at its full potential.
Help to evolve my mindset is welcomed.
I am really curious how any professional user in the Architecture / Building business can work without this most basic feature.
While in the past my focus has been manly on the 3D model and visualization aspects of a project, I recently have to do more and more 2D drafting.
It is completely unprofessional to have unnecessary details in e.g. 1:100 plans that make the hole document unreadable (lines so close together they fuse in print, amout of lines creates visually heavy and dense spots at highly detailed areas, etc.) .
I cannot understand that this is not being addressed, since every other BIM SW has that feature.
Is there anyone using VA for professional work including architectural 2D plans ?
If so I would honestly like to know how you deal with this problem.
Hi. Andreas
Iāve raised this issue before like you, but looks itās impossible to achieve this through Rhino. We are small architecture firm with 20~30 staffs. Weāve concluded VA does NOT work for professional practice. Itās not BIM software. We currently use it for competition project or in very very early phase.
Hi Andreas,
When I need this difference in level of detail for windows (or doors or furniture) like the image example above, I model a detailled and a very basic version in grasshopper and put them in different layers afterwards in rhino. Works quite well like that. For walls this does not work yet but I have the hope this comes soon that you can model your own grasshopper wall.
Hope that helps you,
David
Yes, I then model a detailled and basic grasshopper window. Then use it as VaWindow to be able to adjust dimensions of the window and its profile in Rhino. Then use the layers to either show and hide the detailled or basic version on the layout.
But often I also get rid of the drawing conventions of drawing a basic version and only use a detailled window version, if I have for example only 1:100 and more detailled, because printers nowadays are much more precise then hand drawing was in the old days.
At this point, I do not see this feature coming to VA for the foreseeable future.
It is probably to hard / extensive to implement for Asuni, given the fact that they are of course a small crew.
Maybe instead of having an automated smart algorithm, there could be another approach to that problem that might? be easier to implement.
As I understand VA elements are something like glorified blocks, correct?
Might it be possible to give the user control to create their own proxy representations of this Block for floor views and elevations in VA?
E.g. we could have something like Make2d ā top and than manual edit the result to our individual liking, e.g. by deleting lines.
In the VA Block (Style) properties for this individual block we could then choose to use Version A (original) or Version B (user modified).
In an ideal world, that would be sensitive to details, meaning that the user could define āuse version A for detail 1, use version B for detail 2ā
Not in teams for sure, no. Not even for a one wo/man show. VA is a nifty little tool, no doubt, but I, too, use it for studies mostly. Since critical features are missing, what can you do.
These are:
collaborative workflow (I use ArchiCAD + BIMserver at the moment in a team of 3. From the user perspective, itās a dream. Everyone has one and the same file open, can reserve an object with a click, which is then locked for the others, change it, sync it back in, poof it shows up for the others). This would be a feature which McNeel has to tackle. Workspaces donāt cut it.
LODs
layout-centric workflow (no crapping of 2d stuff into the 3d scene)
layout management, āpublisher setsā (donāt start with homegrown scriptsā¦)
strong schedules (upcoming, yes), placeable on layouts
graphical overwrites per layout
DWG export from layouts (upcoming, yes)
lots of little enhancements specific to architecture, which archicad and the likes already have.
However, some things I prefer to do in Rhino. Modelling, Rendering, terrain (a joke in ArchiCAD), cleaning up plans from 3rd parties. These things.
But: I love VA, and will buy the 3.0 update as soon as itās outā¦
I use VA for residential and small commercial projects here in the US. As Iāve mentioned in other posts, I have found that it works well for smaller projects, usually no more than around 30ish sheets, and with the BIM file only being worked on by one person at a time. I agree with all the comments above about how it could be improved. A lot of my level of detail control comes from isolating elements on layers and then turning off those layers per detail/layout.
In terms of how I handle level of detail: the majority of my drawings cut from the model are 1/4" = 1ā-0" or 1/2" = 1ā-0" scale so the level of detail I show is appropriate for that scale.
I donāt do many 1/8" = 1ā-0" or 1/16" = 1ā-0" scale drawings except for overhead site plans that donāt cut the model anyway. When they are, I turn off elements like furniture, millwork, or extra finishes that need to be hidden for that scale.
Wall sections and details 3/4" = 1ā-0" or more are drafted separately using the cut model as a non-plot background. This workflow is basically the same as I have typically done in revit. Adding enough detail into the BIM model to cut detailed sections is tedious and makes the model too heavy.
thank you for your input, I have to say that I am happy that we have this discussion about the (professional) use cases of VA here, it is basically something I wanted to do for a long time.
I understand your point, however it is probably also dependent on your workflow or what you have to accomplish.
About 90 % of our projects need a high level of detailing, this is because the client wants to see high quality renderings of different design alternatives throughout the entire process of the design which includes a lot of correction loops and going back and forth.
This is certainly a general trend we see happening over the last 10 years.
IMHO, it is not an option to have a second āsimplifiedā version of these models just for the purpose of being able to print out decent plans which feature a scale adequate LOD.
If I understand you correctly your workaround is in a certain way similar to what I tried to describe as a possible future development which would kind of mimic a intelligent LOD feature, at least for doors and windows.
At the end of the day I still think this is a missing basic feature that needs to be implemented ASAP (at least the āuser overrides the top view look himselfā hack I describedā¦)
While I really appreciate all the user input, I think it might be nice if @fsalla or anyone else from Asuni might give us an update a little more specific than last time which was 2 years ago!
VA cant even draw a basic window reveal in a multi-layered wall correctly in plan view. Just look at the pic in the first post, the insulation in M 1:50 door should cover part of the door frame. Or in the M 1:20 door the frame should go though the stucco-layer. There is no way to control these things in VA. This is even more basic than the missing LOD system and makes VA drawing <1:200 kinda useless.
Its really only useful in very early design. And judging by the develpment pace, it wont ever be an alternative for ArchiCad or Revit.
One more issue worth repeating is: over the years, a massive library of real-world, ready-to-use BIM parts has been created by the building industry, because they have a strong interest to be used in the planning process, for good or bad.
(You could argue that architecture is or should be more than just throwing together a bunch of ready-made industry parts, but then you just canāt reinvent the wheel all the time. Not many architectural companies can afford to create e.g. a window down to the last detail for a project, at least not with todayās standards in building physics. You canāt do better than the professionals that invested in their know-how over decades, so you will eventually need their planning kits.)
Check out e.g. bimobject.com for example. These are the download formats they offer:
Some big manufacturers like SchĆ¼co even just offer Revit families.
Of course you could somehow import āstupidā 3d geometry or 2D blocks into VAās objects. But itās about the parametric workflow, right? How could VA make all this available to itās users, parametrically, to be compatible? Parse/reverse engineer Revit families, or ArchiCAD GDL scripts? Donāt see such a technological miracle coming real quick (as much as I love to see the unexpected happen in this shitty monopolist industry).
However, one use scenario where VA comes in very handy is: quickly block out a scene, then, using Rhino inside Revit or ArchiCADās Grasshopper connection, bring the parts into the big BIM apps.
One thingās for sure: VA is very easy to learn (you can show it to someone with a basic understanding of BIM workflows in an hour, an he/she will be good to go), and as cumbersome and topheavy as Revit is (ArchiCAD a little less), as straightforward is VA.
@walther
I agree that it takes a lot more effort for any software to get it to a high quality render level. Back when I was using revit, it is basically impossible for a client to visualize a black and white orthographic view that comes directly from revit, and the perspective view is more or less unusable. We used Enscape to walk around the model, and it is a really incredible software. But to actually make it usable for the client required an enormous amount of detail, otherwise they would get distracted by elements that are in process thinking that they were finished.
With the rhino/VA workflow I basically do not create renderings. I use a modified arctic view style with materials and we move around the model together. Clients love getting a sense of the space but understand itās a working model and not a photo-real rendering and it saves an enormous amount of time.
@Eugen
In terms of 3d models, I am often using stuff from BIMobject, https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/, and vray cosmos for random entourage. I use proprietary companies for fancy specific equipment and make many of my own parametric families with grasshopper. I liked making families in revit and preferred the control over just using stuff directly from manufacturers. The ones from manufacturers often were either under cooked or really bloated. I have found that the grasshopper based families take longer to make but are ultimately more stable than revit families. Revit families require a lot of hoops to keep them from breaking due to 0 length dimensions.
I agree, I wish there was a better universal format ifc type for parametric families.
@Eugen
I fully agree. This is a very important statement. Having a Revit or Archicad family converter into Rhino parametric format would be a miracle. I donāt expect that manufacturers on BIMObject will start to provide Rhino models soon (at least until VA will become a big player on BIM market) @fsalla any chance to build a tool for converting Revit families into VA format (without using a RhinoInside - we want to become independent from paying for Revit)?
