Jump to content

Rossford

Member
  • Content Count

    307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Great

About Rossford

  • Rank
    Journeyman

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Golf Course Architect
  • Homepage
    jeffreydbrauer.com
  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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
  6. 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)
  7. I think you have to use that class exactly as VW labels it, at least that has been my experience as well.
  8. 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!
  9. 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!
  10. 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.
  11. I haven't done it in a while, or in 2021 but did experiment with using the road tool and its distribute stake command to create swales with constant grade and gentle curves (using polyline alignment mode.) If rendering, you obviously have to pick a more turf like surface image. I still do fairly traditional contour grading, sometimes by hand, sometimes by inserting/reusing contour shapes (i.e., a mound is often a mound and you can just trim the bottom lines as required) and signatures (i.e., 3% swale, etc.) For this, I have long lobbied VW to add a tool I think is in ACAD, which is the stretch tool, i.e., pull multiple poly lines contour lines and have them stretch evenly to elongate a mound (yes, in 2D before you convert to 3D. Sadly, I haven't had enough time (or grading work) to play with the push pull aspects now in LM.
  12. You can print the PDF help sections, at least I have in the past, to take and learn on the road. In the end, I think the best way is to learn by doing, hopefully with someone more experienced at your side to guide you. Perhaps your local user group? Or, one of the many trainers who will come to your office (or at least used to) or you can go to VW courses at HQ and periodically elsewhere, too.
  13. LOL, and I find it is often hard to change out the north arrow style, for some reason, it defaults back to one I used somewhere along the way. Not sure if there is a fix for that? In any case, if there were a stylistic north arrow hall of fame, cataloging typical north arrows by decade, this list could be included. If anyone knows, are there any new stylistic N Arrow trends? In golf, I see a lot of folks going back to the 1920's style north arrows.
  14. You can change the stacking order in the organization palette, no? I have also found it helpful to list layers either alphabetically, where possible, and change the names of layers 1-9 to 01, 02, 03, etc. which keeps layer 10 from being after layer 1, for instance.
  15. Can't wait to see how the push pull works on 3D polygons. Hate to have to go back to 2D bezier modes on free form grading. Would also love being able to push pull a group of flowing polygons to stretch out one side of a designed mound/earthform/hill.

 

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...