There are at least two difference ways to create a Punch! plan appropriate for the different uses the plan may be used.
Punch! plans are primarily designed for conceptual purposes. Punch! does not contain the sort of software tools or expertise needed to analyze the drawings for structural integrity, for example. It's perfectly possible in the gravity-less Punch! world to construct buildings which would fall down if realized as they are drawn. This is not a real drawback for using Punch!, since Punch! was made to convey ideas and the designer's intent to a knowledgeable professional who will them supply the structural rigor needed to make the plan reality.
Likewise, the vertical plan that HighRise describes can have two aspects: the first emphasizes best appearance of the plan in 3D, and the other emphasizes the structural integrity. The reason for the first choice is obvious - quite often you want the design to look its best regardless of what minor structural difficulties are presented. The architect will take care of those later; in the meantime, you want the looks to be as clean as possible. On the other hand, Punch! does have a couple of component level tools (and may soon have more!) which work best when the appearance is downplayed in order to get the structure at the object level to play along with good structural practices.
An example: When constructing a two story above-ground house, Punch! encourages the user to create an identical set of exterior walls on each floor. ideally these walls will show only a single seam on the outside - the joining of the two floors walls. This neat appearance requires that the walls meet and close off the area the floor occupies. Structurally, however, one would actually position the floor on top of the walls from below, and build the second story walls on top of the floor. The difference in a few inches here makes quite a difference in appearance: in the structural design, the floor shows through the walls, while in the appearance design the floor is somehow attached to or embedded in the walls. Using the Framer and Estimator on an appearance-design will result in slightly different lengths and potentially different counts. The difference can be seen in the illustration, the functional plan is on the left; the plan optimized for appearence is on the right.
The choice between appearance and correct structurality starts in the vertical plan. In an appearance-plan outside walls are long and unpunctured by floors - in structurally sound designs the floors show through since they must support the load above against gravity. That makes the vertical wall heights different than they are otherwise. Thus HighRise gives the user the choice. In some cases Punch! makes the decision a wash, especially in the presence of autofloors.
Autofloors are on option on Punch! exterior walls. They fill the inside space with a floor that automatically springs from the walls, and therefore doesn't need to be explicitly drawn. Autofloors are designed for appearance. The wall adds length to cover the thickness of the floor, and the floor springs from the center of the wall, so it is not visible on the outside, and from the inside it appears to slide under the wall as one would expect. In the presence of autofloored walls, the appearance/functional choice has no effect.
The default choice is to optimize appearance. The only reason to choose functional is because the user intends to use the Framer and Estimator and desires the best measurements possible.
HighRise and the contents of this help file are
Copyright©2006 by ThistleKeep Engineering; all rights are reserved.
Comments and suggestions, as well as support, are entertained at Lmc@ThistleKeep.com.
"Punch!" and other titles of Punch! operations are trademarks of Punch! Software L.L.C.