I seem to be stuck here. I am sure it’s a simple fix and I just cant figure it out. I am trying to make a simple window and door buck. It is 4 sided with each piece being it’s own component. and all four being a parent component. The way I would like this to work is I enter the window size and depth of the buck in a text box and the inside of the buck adjusts. It is important that the pieces join as drawn. I think I’m right there but when ever I type in my sizes my pieces are not lining up correctly. I am sure I am being an idiot here but I for the life of my can’t see it. Please help. Window Buck.skp (217.1 KB)
Very close but still not quite. The order of the over lapping matters. So the header must over lap the two sides so its length is the input plus 40mm. Or the same as length x in the parent component.
Then the side are the height input plus 20mm as they but under the header and run past the sill. and the sill is the input for width. I cant seem how to keep the corners together. Thanks again I really do appreciate it.
Yes. I didn’t know how the pieces fit (actually haven’t heard the term “Buck” before now). But it seemed a couple changes would make things clearer. Glad you got it.
Have you tried simply resizing them manually. I can change a window size faster with the move tool than I can with dynamic components and the file size is much smaller.
I agree with this for the most part. The catch, for me, is that DCs can be used for takeoffs and then to Generate Reports. Model Views of the 3D takeoffs and Tables (material amounts) can then be brought into Layout. The idea here is to get project managers and installation crews on the same page. When design intent is more clearly shown to project managers and crews, mistakes can be avoided and there is less need to circle back to the designer for more input on what they are trying to convey.
I don’t have all of the bugs worked out yet… and not much buy-in. But I’d like to know if this seems like a reasonable approach to you?
Yeah this is exactly it. I generate material reports and take-offs. The advantage as each individual piece is generates its own cost and then a cost per assembly. Also I find when working in models with a lot of the same window and door size its easier to type the window dimensions in as per schedule.
A buck is just a term I borrowed from the masonry guys. It’s kind of like a lining. Here in South Africa, 99% of the houses are built with brick, so they kinda get what I mean.
I am building with ;light gauge steel. It’s been a challenge as we need to detail everything as the professional teams are not really geared up for this type of construction. (I am from the states by the way. Been here for 10 years)
Back in the day when I was first doing construction carpentry we built a bunch of interior walls in a building remodel using steel studs. I picked up the term, “wrick”, as in, “we tipped up the wall and had to wrick it square”. I’ve been told since that “wrick ain’t a word”… At any rate I’ve been meaning to draw up some DC outdoor kitchens using steel studs. Maybe I’ll toss in a buck to frame out the cabinets
I should clarify: my projects rarely have single repetitive windows and doors. Most are multi-sash units of varying size and operation. That doesn’t suit DC’s very well. For designs containing repetitive single sash windows, I’m sure using DC’s makes a lot of sense.
It makes sense that you would need very detailed views of a multitude of windows (and other custom items). For the process mentioned above it can be fine to just give an impression. For example, boulder walls. A model view can show location and size, and be used for takeoffs (simultaneously, killing two birds with one stone). But the actual shape of each boulder can’t be known in advance so a generic boulder DC can provide actionable information without fine-grained detail. Repetition, as you note, and uniqueness seem to dictate DC use. Much to learn and much fun to be had!
Absolutely, for a builder that can be very advantageous. Architects typically do not get involved in the detailed pricing/estimating process for builders due to the liability involved. Most E&O policies do not cover architects for detailed estimating and pricing on behalf of builders (unfortunately many are not aware of that caveat).
