Regional Differences - Measures ?

[Munkholm]

Am working a lot on the RFO Style Guide these days, and am afraid that regional differences might cause a lot of :banghead:

So hopefully everyone would care to answer this:

When you are about to insert a door with the type name "900 mm x 2100 mm" or "3' x 7'" - What part of the door would you expect to have those dimensions ?

Thanks :beer:

Edit: Besides answering the poll, please also post your answer and your country here:

Denmark = Wall Opening

[snowyweston]

That's quite a "piece of string" question as it can vary from job to job, client to client, supplier to supplier, etc...

Of course, were I employing a well made door family and a robust family type naming protocol (ie. one that doesn't talk to geometry) there'd be no need to differentiate as all of the respective dimensions would be there for the taking for however/whoever you were producing schedules.

But if I had to choose just one?

England = Wall Opening

[Alex Cunningham]

California USA - Door Leaf, The physical door size....

[rkitect]

Tulsa, OK, USA, Atlanta, GA, USA

...and here's why. I need to know what the opening size for the passage way of the door is when doing schematic and DD layout. The actual opening is taken care of in the door jamb/head/sill details along with rough opening dims on the door schedules.

Now, the problem we've been having recently is that door leaf sizes aren't actually the size of the opening you need. Pella for instance has some really off the wall dimensions for their 3ohx7oh doors so when you try to model the pella doors to their specs and then measure to the leaf you get an odd dimension and thus have to create fake dim planes in the model. So, This may be one of those conventions that is heading out the door now that manual drafting is less conventional and soon to be replaced with something that is a bit more informative or even flexible between design set phases.

[Munkholm]

...Of course, were I employing a well made door family and a robust family type naming protocol (ie. one that doesn't talk to geometry) there'd be no need to differentiate as all of the respective dimensions would be there for the taking for however/whoever you were producing schedules...

The door that are being developed is fully parametric, and all parameters are shared, so scheduling won´t be a problem... the problem is that only a few of the parameters are left for user input, and the rest gets calculated by formulas based on frame jamb width etc.
So if (and it is currently) it´s built to expect user input for the opening, and you really want to input the leafs size you´ll need to do a lot of math... Unless we make two (or three) versions, were the formulas are changed to fit regional needs... Would hate to make different versions, but have a strong feeling that it´s unavoidable... :banghead:

[Munkholm]

Tulsa, OK, USA, Atlanta, GA, USA

...and here's why. I need to know what the opening size for the passage way of the door is when doing schematic and DD layout.

Assuming that your answer was "leaf"... but what if the family had a parameter that gave you the TRUE opening size (between the jambs) and you could schedule and dimension that? Would it be OK to have the family controlled by opening size?

[Dave Jones]

Am working a lot on the RFO Style Guide these days, and am afraid that regional differences might cause a lot of :banghead:

So hopefully everyone would care to answer this:

When you are about to insert a door with the type name "900 mm x 2100 mm" or "3' x 7'" - What part of the door would you expect to have those dimensions ?

Thanks :beer:

Edit: Besides answering the poll, please also post your answer and your country here:

Denmark = Wall Opening

there should be a None of the Above choice. In the USA in the construction industry when a door size is given as 3' x 7' it refers to the door opening size (inside of door frame to inside of door frame width and inside of door frame to floor line height), not the outside frame size, or the door leaf size, or the opening in the wall (rough opening) size

[rkitect]

Would it be OK to have the family controlled by opening size?

Definitely, and that's exactly how I modeled the pella doors for this church we just finished. So there are 3 different plan dimensions you can get form the family; the "opening" which is strong reference planes with no geometry on it but represents the desired width of the opening (ie: 3'-0"), the geometry of the leaf (which depending on the manufacturer will vary), and the rough opening which is dependent on how the manufacturer provides the framing for the door in question.

And yes, my answer was leaf

[Munkholm]

there should be a None of the Above choice. In the USA in the construction industry when a door size is given as 3' x 7' it refers to the door opening size (inside of door frame to inside of door frame width and inside of door frame to floor line height), not the outside frame size, or the door leaf size, or the opening in the wall (rough opening) size

Thanks Dave - Added that as an option in the poll

Definitely, and that's exactly how I modeled the pella doors for this church we just finished. So there are 3 different plan dimensions you can get form the family; the "opening" which is strong reference planes with no geometry on it but represents the desired width of the opening (ie: 3'-0"), the geometry of the leaf (which depending on the manufacturer will vary), and the rough opening which is dependent on how the manufacturer provides the framing for the door in question.

And yes, my answer was leaf

Just to be as clear a possible: I meant > Would it be OK to have the family controlled by WALL opening size?

Still OK?

[rkitect]

Wall opening = Rough Opening? ie: the dimensions of the jamb/head framing prior to the actual door frame going in?

Yes, still. If the goal of this door family is to be a catch all, use everywhere, generic door family then so long as you can control the distance between the rough opening frame and the desired passage size, then I think that will work just fine.