Wish .Add Match Propertise To VesualArQ Objects

I Suggest .Add Match Propertise To VesualArQ Objects
for example Match wall to wall(Style -Thikness-Hight,…)
or win to win,


1 Like

Hi @Rh-3d-p from VisualARQ 2.13 we will provide some utilities that will make it possible to have commands for matching properties among VisualARQ objects, such as the style or the height.
I’ll keep you posted.

Is it possible to add that type of feature with IFC properties ?

VA is really a huge deal when it comes to exporting IFC because is adds a lot of flexibility (being able to model anything, assign IFC class + IFC properties such as material, color, phase, reference, pricing is a really big deal).

But creating property sets (paramater in Visual arq) is a very tideous task.
At the moment it is only possible to create “shared” property sets within a whole rhino file, using the parameter list feature.

But some objects do not need to share every single property available in the file.
For instance :

For instance, in a project we are working on, we need to assign cladding parameter to objects. A staircase needs to have that “cladding” parameter, but a car parking space does not…
When creating file shared parameters, every single object in the file gets that parameter option.

The other option is to add parameter by object

But that makes the process really time consuming. That is why have a macthproperties for IFC propeties would be a work around.
Creating only one object with the desired parameters, and then macthing all the other ones according to it.

I wish we could filter through parameters and assign them through layers, IFC classes etc…

I really really hope you will be able to extend these IFC capabilities (parameter management) because it s a really big deal


Hi @raoufdjema15 this new utility in VisualARQ 2.13 to match properties will only work to match values of properties that are already existing in different objects. But it won’t match the whole set of parameters if these parameters are created by object.
As you may know, in addition to creating parameters by Document or by Object, you can also create them by style. So objects of the same style can display that parameter while others of different types or styles won’t.

We have plans to add the “object type” when creating custom parameters, which I believe would help you according to your requests.

In the case of ifcTypes, this is something that can be already assigned by Layer, from the ifcExportOptionsDialog.

1 Like


We already use IFC type attribution through IFC layers, wich is very very useful indeed.

The “object type” feature you are talking about would be a big progress. for offices like ours.

The problem with parameter attribution through objects styles is that we need to go through this window to create a custom repeatble element (using a pre-existing block in rhino). Wich is really powerful for repeatable elements. But that takes away some flexibility in the model.

Or maybe i do not have a good enough knowledge of VA.

Anyways, the power of VA (with BIM) is that IFC types and parameters can also be assigned to custom objects that are not created through VA styles, Blocks or any parametric process. That sets it appart from all the other BIM softwares.

Freemodeling IFC objects adds a lot of flexibility and is the main reason why we chose to buy VA at our office.

Anyways, we are looking forward to a “object typ” ifc parameter attribution feature.
If it is what i think, it’s an option that allow parameter attribution according to IFC Types ?

So that all IFC walls share the same property set for instance ?


1 Like

Exactly, when you create a Document parameter, there will be a field to determine to which object types this parameter applies. For example, you will be able to create a parameter called “Manufacturer”, that only applies to doors and windows. Then you will be able to assign a value for this parameter on each door and window in the model, but when you select a wall, you won’t see that parameter.

1 Like

That would be perfect. Any way to attribute parameters to custom objects in an organized way woul be huge.

I guess the problem here is to organize wich parameter attribution has priority.

Anyways, thanks for reading.