Parametric Cell Studio - Perforators

By default, perforators have never created openings in walls from a vertical orientation (or other angles).  However, there is an undocumented variable (I know, I know) that does allow perforators to cut vertically: BB_PERFORATEALL.  Set this to a value of 1, restart ABD, then move the object in order to regenerate the geometry.   That should work.

Undocumented? Does that mean unsupported or just forgotten?

Thanks -  I'll give that a go.

One thing I have used to create a variable depth pocket is to create a variable

and use it to control the movement of the perforator off the reference plane.

Most cells I have seen use a static perforator.

However,

If you set

Blind = False

Direction = 1

It tells the perforator to cut the entire form in the outward direction only.

This way you can use the variable to control how far into the form or wall

to locate the perforator and it will remove the part of wall from the perforator

to the front of the wall.

This concept can be used in combination with a bidirection rough opening perforator.

In this sceneio, it is useful to create an opening in a wall where you want two different size openings.

For instance, a window in a brick metal stud wall.

I would use the standard bi-directional rough opening perforator to cut all the wall through the wall.

Then set up a second perforator as discribed above with the height and width

set independently of the rough opening perforator

Maybe in this case, I would have created a  variable (i.e. Masonry_Opening) to control the second

perforator height and width and set it 2" larger than the rough opening.

I then set my variable to the depth of the second perforator

to occur in the cavity between brick and metal stud wall.

The perforator will only remove the brick which is in front of the second perforator.

I now have room to place my wood trim.

HTH

Tom

Hi Tom,

Yes that is a shrewd move, but doesnt really work in the alternative vertical situation I was looking at previously in this thread. My "pockets" would be a vertical perforator cutting a complex shape from the foot of the door to the lintel, and then complex shapes cutting along the cill and lintel horizontally along the wall. ie not  a simple puch through the wall.

Do you have a sketch of what you are trying to acheive?

For starters:
A simple traditional wall construction (please don't laugh too hard at my detailing)

Compound wall = 102.5mm Brick + Void + 75mm Insulation + 140mm Block-work + 25mm Finish

I've assembled this example as a compound cell in this case because PCS is such a nightmare to use, and I get to show the multiple perforators needed to cut the wall leaves separate from the 3d Solids used to close the hole.

The reason for the 45 degree perforators is to make for a clean join in the brickwork and internal finish returns (for Perspective views and rendering)

I havn't created perforators that might accommodate sloping cills, or more complex lintels.

All of these perforators could be preplaced by just one or two if the problems discussed in this thread were addressed.

The brick and internal finish parts and families had to be hard coded in the cell.

Very cool.

You are correct that having control over depth of each cut would be important.

And I do dislike the way the placement Sense distance overrides the default

values of all the perforators during placement.

A variable defined perforator depths disassociated from sense distance

is definately what is needed.

And I do like your concept of subtractive 3d perforators.

Sounds like CR time to me.

Very cool.

You are correct that having control over depth of each cut would be important.

And I do dislike the way the placement Sense distance overrides the default

values of all the perforators during placement.

A variable defined perforator depths disassociated from sense distance

is definately what is needed.

And I do like your concept of subtractive 3d perforators.

Sounds like CR time to me.

CR submitted.

Great job Robert. I hope you re-use the windows again and again.

Oh no congratulations yet. Still battling with the PAZ version of the cell - both the process of creating the cell and the cell istelf are very flaky.

The PCS tool (if it has a future) has to become much less arcane.

This particular wall closer will only work for this particular wall type. I will need to recreate these cells to suit each project specific wall build up.

Expecting general users to do this fiddly PAZ editing (and re-editing) is unfeasible. They already have a lot to do that shouldn't include retrofitting a dozen perforators, and/or reapplying parts&families, and rebuilding the PAZ cell before swapping out all the existing cells in their model, just because a last minute design change is made to the outer cladding material...

The De-arcanisation of PCS.... this would fill a few threads, removed and otherwise, I think :-)

A bit of an aside at this point, but have a look at the Be Presentation of Civil Cells. I see a lot of PCS-like 'grafting' of components onto other elements using offsets etc.... all within Mstn. PCS 2.0?

Unknown said:

I will need to recreate these cells to suit each project specific wall build up.

I am slightly surprised to hear this. Reading the PCS user guide, when a component is 'grafted' onto another, it looks up all the top-level reference variables and reconciles them to the variables in the assembly.

Doesn't PCS do the same, when a PCS-generated window is inserted into a wall assembly,  Mstn-side? If the Wall thickness is declared as a /top-level variable in the PCS component, doesn't PCS look at the Wall thickness variable in the host wall, and copies the values thru? Same deal for F+P symbology info? This should cut down on the number of variations that needs to be generated.

Wonder how that GC UGF Bake-as-Compound-Cell option is doing?

As per my other parallel parameter cell studio thread; no it doesn't seem that part&family info within a paz cell can be updated VIA the datagroup system.

The wall thickness value within the paz cell only relates to a single leaf thickness ( graphic group off) or the entire compound wall thickness ( graphic group on ). There is no way to interrogate multiple leaves.

Similarly the peforators are universally driven by a single datagroup value.

While wallthickness and sensedistance are fine for simple single leaf walls, they are very limited for mutileaf compound walls.

Yes paramedic cell studiow allows you to nest hierarchical constructs of one component  within another but requires the to be user to be proficient in PCS. My users have a hard enough time editing dimensions styles.let alone delving into PCS.