Rossford

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

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)

I think you have to use that class exactly as VW labels it, at least that has been my experience as well.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The ultimate shortcut, no? After that, in a few years, maybe we can draw, say, polylines simply be moving our eyes. Seems like that US Air Force technology is now old enough to be filtering down to everyday use.....and a lot more useful than Tang! (for those of you old enough to remember and get that joke.....)

As a golf course architect, I need all custom classes, LOL. While not familiar with all the classes you mention, I find that my "proposed" layers and classes ought to be first and existing layers and classes (which don't get changed as often after you set up the base map) ought to show up near the bottom of the list. It saves some scrolling for me, anyway. Visually, the construction items (drainage, contouring) show up on top of contours, existing features, etc. naturally, as well, which works for my kind of work. I use letters first, not numbers and find names that allow me to be alliterative, i.e., while being in the correct (for me) order. Then, drainage classes always start with 'D". A 10" drain pipe is D-10, for example, and go in the appropriate layers, rather than putting everything in "Design Layer 1". A bit more work, but easier to avoid mistakes and get quantities, control the drawing look, etc. A- Activate Project (including prelim staking, etc) B- Brushing and Clearing C- Contouring (Grading) D- Drainage E - Engineering and Environmental F - Features G - Grassing H - Hardscape I - Irrigation K - 3d Contours/polys M - Site Model X - Existing (XS for ex site, XG for ex golf, etc) Z - Aerials and imports. Call be crazy, but we debate putting all those separate layers as well. It's a little complicated, but does allow working in "Show Other" layers, without worry that I am picking up a clearing line when I am working on drainage, etc. To simplify and reduce file size, we actually have templates for concept drawings only, and only use the full template once we get to construction drawings, importing classes as we need to. Probably not for everyone, but thought I would share.

Thanks, Pat. Will tee this one up later today!

Agree on the worksheet function, but am I the only one who likes to set classes to show or gray others, hit select all just to take a quick look that some drain pipe class (say 6" or whatever) just looks like they are all right? Old school yes, but I never quite trust all the automation. But, yes, eventually getting them into a bid form this works great.

If you use viewports to place your drawings on sheet layers, you can edit the viewport to scale up lines and hatches specifically to that scale. It's under advanced properties at the bottom when you click to open a viewport. I have some standard viewports because we go back and forth from 100, 200 and 30 scales. I have used the line weight scale factor but haven't yet fiddled with the hatch settings.

Pat, I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been. Can you work in feet on the drawing, but use the dual dimensions of yards in a worksheet? Forgot to mention the scorecard is a worksheet......

I asked this question a few weeks ago. No answer, and I haven't found a way to do it. On things like our drainage plans, which could be lines from point to point, we just remember to add a third point, even if on a straight line, and draw them as polygons. It is also possible to compose 2 (or more) intersecting lines after drawing them and it converts them to a polygon where the perimeter is the length. If you have multiple combined lines they will all compose/connect only to themselves, and it will show as 4 (or whatever) polygons with a total measurement, if all are selected. While a bit time consuming, if you did it often, a simple script and shortcut key to run it would speed it up. Best I got! I hope others have better!

Thanks, will give it a try.

I know I knew this at one time but can't for the life of me find the answer on VW help, so I thought I would try here...... In my golf course work, I usually work in feet for construction measurements, but would prefer the scorecard report in yards, without my having to create a formula of "Record/3". I recall reading somewhere (Jonathan P maybe?) that worksheets could be set to different units than the drawing. Can that (still) be done? Thanks if advance for pointing out the obvious on a Monday morning.....

Yes, that does take a long time to do anything and freezes up. We do a lot of similar grading. It appears you simplified polys which is good. You can try to simplify more, especially since the smoothness of the site model shouldn't be apparent or important below water. Someone once told me that contour lines with tens of vertices are better than hundreds, which should be the max. If any contour counts in the thousands of vertices it will take forever to calculate, so keep simplifying until you get the count as low as possible and still achieve the look you want. Looks like most of yours have in the tens to low hundreds, so I think Bryan is right - try only the top and bottom contours, which should probably give you what you want.

Pat, Is there a way to measure multiple lines in a selection? Seems I can only measure one at a time.

Miriam, Yes, closing the file fixes most all things, doesn't it. On occasion, I have also simply minimized my VW window and brought it back to full screen and that has solved some graphic issues, so it may be worth a try.

The bottom center of the 3D polys is blank, but part of the generated model. Is that the areas you are referring to? If so, perhaps your model crop should be closer to the property line? Have you set the minimum and maximum elevations to be lower and above the contours? Looks like some of your low areas got cut off, although it appears to be in the original contours, not the site model.

Yes, one of the mandates was conforming to California's then program of reducing turf areas and irrigation, especially what is now called the Champions course. The Legend course will be a bit more forgiving, but not quite as scenic.