Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Great

About Rossford

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Golf Course Architect
  • Homepage
  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You only have one 3D poly or am I missing something?
  2. What kind of polyline are you drawing? I don't see it listed in the help section, but I think you can only use cubic vertex, or maybe arc tangent mode, but not Bezier, when creating a road via polyline.
  3. Yes, it looks like my gremlins went to visit you, LOL. Finding those geometry quirks are needle in haystack type operations. What version do you have? I haven't played with the alter surface mesh modeling tool in VW 2021 much, but maybe this is a possible way to adjust the surface. I take it your basic site model with smoothed mesh is just "standard" VW green? Sometimes, we leave the lawn areas with no Landscape Area and just do the roads, etc., that may take out some of the problems?
  4. On the photo above, I see a cross in just about the area that the landscape area doesn't meet the model. Any chance that is a stray stake? Also, hard to tell from the isometric view, but the 4 contours on that side of the retaining edge look like they might cross. They don't necessarily look like the similar 4 contours on the cutout further right on the page. Just guessing, trying to help.
  5. Have you tried looking at your site model in left, right or bottom views? I find most of my first site models have a few stray points that affect results at first, and using other views usually highlights those, if any exist. They don't show up as conflicts, because they aren't, but sometimes a stake or partial contour gets left well above or below the mesh surface. Also, sometimes we have tried elevating the landscape area +0.1 or so above the surface, which helps it not be pierced by any ridges sharper than the landscape area might cover. Would be interested in other responses, as I may have misinterpreted your intent here.
  6. Auto Cad used to have (been decades since I ran both programs) a nice contour labeling too. You drew a line over the string of basically parallel contours you drew, and it labeled them. That allowed us to place the labels quickly where we wanted them. We also prefer existing contour labels on the perimeter of the site model or bounding box we are working on to avoid confusion with proposed. (yes we vary size and color as well, but they always seem to get in the way. It seems like that could be a check box in the site model set up.
  7. Saw a presentation at the last live summit. An urban designer drew streetscapes without topo change, figuring, I guess people perceive most streets as flat enough that they don't need the 1-2% road and sidewalk topo. He used 3D rectangles, for streets, walks, curbs, buildings, etc.
  8. He could be in every client rendering for several years and still draw a laugh. Has anyone else put in other characters just for fun and to see if people notice? It's risky. I once rendered a fender bender in a parking lot, but I upset a person who had been disabled in a car wreck, and never did anything like it again. But, I could see a Homer Simpson or Where's Waldo type addition, at least for the right client.
  9. Not sure this is exactly what you are talking about, but in the OIP of the viewport, click advanced properties. The top of that box allows you to scale symbols, text, line types, line weights, etc. We usually do grading plans at 100 or 200 with detail areas from 30-40-50 scale. And, we sometimes label contours or have them in 2D. So, if we are going from 100 to 30, we type in 0.33 or 0.25 for text size (experiment a bit) and it puts the text size where we want it in the 30 scale viewport. I think you can customize a standard viewport you use often that way. I played with it for dimension arrows, and they don't seem to scale, but I wonder if you could do a custom dim with tiny, tiny arrows that would just look good at larger scales?
  10. Kevin, Here you go, I think (never have uploaded to VW boards, so let me know). I looked at a few more contour lines, and was able to simplify them without losing important info all the way up to 6 units apart as maximum distance in the simplify poly mode. 7 started taking out road crowns and the like. On a few partial polygons (they are broken, which is fine, but if connected perhaps more impressive) I got 170+ vertices down to 42 at that maximum distance. Not sure how much it will reduce file size, but should be a chunk. 1022-2D_v2020 vw boards 2020 12 19 12 Cen.zip
  11. Took a quick look, but looks like you only simplified the major contours. I was able to simplify a minor contour from 172 vertices to 30 by using simplify poly, and setting the maximum distance to about 3, (after trying 1.5 and 2, not sure you might not go further on some of them without losing details)
  12. I think you have to use that class exactly as VW labels it, at least that has been my experience as well.
  13. I like the idea of only 9 classes, at least per class. And, I also dislike Drainage-Basin-12" if I can get by with CB-12 instead. Long scrolling is a bear. May have to reconsider a few of mine, LOL. I also do what you do, making the number 1, "01" and so forth so that they show up in the numeric order I want them, otherwise, classes might show up as 0, 1, 10, 11, 12, 2.....or something similar. I do the same thing dating my drawings and revisions as in 2020 11 17 15 (3PM) Also see you came to similar conclusions on the layer hierarchy on what is most likely to show info you want. As in, yes, topo should be above even features since you usually want it to show through, at least in my plans. Thanks for sharing!
  14. Elin, We design golf courses, so our paths are almost always the same width. Sometimes, they widen out for small areas, like at tees. Short version, I don't know exactly how you would free form with the road tool. There is a video somewhere here about someone using the road tool to depress a free flowing creek. To make a swale, you just give the side slopes a batter of 30 to 1 or whatever instead of 3 to 1. Again, in golf, we find ourselves using similar landforms from project to project. For instance, on flat ground, we know we will be probably putting catch basins every 200-400 feet on a fairway, running at a 2.5-4% slope. So, I copied one of those typical sets of oval shaped drainage basins and then I plunk them in the drawing, usually in 2D so I can tweak them, then convert to 3D. If you can drop one in 3D, then change the Z value (my signatures usually start at 100 at the base). If your area is at 545 elevation, I raise the Z value 445 feet, etc. I will say, there is some debate around here as to whether that is actually faster than regenerating a mouse drawn set of contours, but conceptually, I feel reusing parts is one of the advantages of CAD, even if its not quite as "drop in" as in structures, lighting, etc. Others feel like they need the control, still others feel guilty about not hand producing a unique plan. Another area we often use contour signatures is mounding. We find many fairways need some mounds to define the corridor. And, we know those ought to be longer than wide (i.e., no artificial looking circles) The sides are 3:1 up to 6:1, and the top ridge should have 10-15% slope as the golfer looks at it to be "natural looking." I feel, why create that every time? So, I have drawn some combos of 2 to 5 mounds in a row, slightly staggered, meeting those dimensions, and usually 12-15 feet high, etc. Drop the most suitable on the new plan, and trim the bottom contours with the trim tool as they meet the natural contours. Again, it is more difficult to find the perfect match using 3D polys or nurbs, so we haven't been able to figure out how to do it in 3D directly. Obviously, the VW way to do it should morph into a direct 3D work flow. Liking what I like in the looks of a contour plan, I haven't yet found a way to just set a high point at appropriate places, swales elsewhere, etc. (grade tool on a polygon would be a great thing, and that is where subbing the road tool comes in sometimes) The push pull tool and some others should allow that, but I get in a hurry and haven't changed my workflow quite yet. Maybe this winter break!
  15. Benson, Yes, I have done some of that, sometimes it results in a shape I like, other times it doesn't, but I do have a collection of such groups in my stash of good topo signatures to use.


7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114


© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

  • Create New...