Should sub-levels operate like levels in terms of constraints?

VisualARQ
1

I believe that sub-levels should work similarly to the levels in terms of constraints. Throughout my testing, the sub-level change of elevation does not affect the top of the wall - and the wall-height.

sub-level-constraints

I understand that the constraints rely on the height value of each level, when the sub-levels do not have such value. IMO sub-levels should affect geometry of va objects with constraints - like the walls. Please add those to previous wishes-suggestions about the level manager and the elevations of sub-levels relative to their corresponding levels.

2

Hi @GabrielB we will revise this. I’ll get back to you when we fix it.

3

sub-levels should be relative the main-levels. Have you got plans about it, in addition to the constraints function?

4

Hi @GabrielB

This is how it works now.

5

No, sub-levels are relative only in terms of where they belong to, but the elevation still is global not relative.

When changing the elevation of a level, the sub-levels do not follow with a relative height difference from main levels.

Many times building up sub-levels like TOS–> top of slab, BOS–>bottom of slab etc, with specific height difference from main levels is the way to go

It’s already discussed in earlier topics. Are there any plans for it + the constraints system for sub-levels mentioned in this topic or not?

6

I get it now.

The sub-levels elevation can be displayed relative to the Building Elevation or to the Global elevation, but not relative to the Host level. We can change this behavior and show it relative to the Level when the Toggle level’s elevation is activated.

7

I just realized you asked for this already here: Global Elevation vs Elevation relative to level

This is scheduled for VisualARQ 4.

The constraints issue is something we have fixed in the VisualARQ 3.11 update.