Jump to content

J. Wallace

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by J. Wallace

  1. Thank you very much for your valued feedback @zoomer Our timing to purchase a new unit is not great given the lack of testing as you noted. I agree that 64 gb for ram on a long term machine is a good idea. Years ago I purchased an Imac and with the lower cost chip, at the time I believe it was an i5, big mistake. Thank you again, we shall see where this journey takes us.
  2. Hello everyone There has been some discussion both on this forum and on many Youtube channels about the differences between the M1 Pro and Max chips. We are needing to replace one of our workstations, a 2012 Mac Pro, that has served us very well over the past decade. We are considering a Macbook Pro and find it difficult to determine how important the Pro vs Max chip upgrade would be to our workflow using VW and Twinmotion. We would be purchasing the maximum amount of RAM available in each case, either 32 GB for the Pro and 64 GB for the Max chip. We seem to be getting into much larger land design projects, the latest using an 800+ acre site model. I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has made the leap to the new M1 Macbook pro, what configuration they decided on, and how they find the performance. One video which has caused some doubt in my mind regarding the Max chip set is shown below. Saying that the stress test used is most likely not going to be replicated in our day to day workflow. My gut instinct is that the Pro chip with 32 GB of unified memory would be more than enough. Thank you in advance for any comments or feedback.
  3. @line-weight a question for you if you don't mind, how does your mac mini perform with both VW and Twinmotion open? We are looking to add a M1 Macbook pro but trying to sort out our requirements and how the Max vs Pro chips might meet those. We were going to hold out for the updated Mac mini but can't wait that long. Thanks
  4. @line-weight I have been exploring Twinmotion using VW 2022. There is a new feature called the Datasmith Direct Link tool, this allows a direct link between VW and Twinmotion so no exports to worry about.
  5. @Art V the course I'm taking is offered by the Regrarians...http://www.regrarians.org/qgis-for-mapping-and-design/ You get lifetime access the this online video course. For those who are not familiar with it, the Regrarians platform is a farm design protocol based on a variety of applications such as Permaculture, Holistic management, PA Yeomens scale of permanence and other design approaches.
  6. @jeff prince @Tom W. @Benson Shaw thank you very much for looking at this. @jeff prince yes I pulled these contours from QGIS (which I'm in a steep learning curve, I'm taking a fantastic online course which is a huge help) with the hopes of creating a site model. The model you created looks great, thanks! It might be a bit flatter than actual as my contour intervals where 2 meter. Jeff I'm not sure how you discovered the Modify by record tool but it worked like a charm. I discovered that I made an error while exporting from QGIS as I did not extract the Z value correctly. No worries as VW has the tool to change this. Amazing. I'm also surprised that the resulting model is pretty stable given it's 850 acres. Thank you all so much for helping me learn more about this software. I
  7. Here you go @Art V https://www.dropbox.com/sh/97vsejjrbc5tpc0/AABan59UCBzYK0CeyApCremca?dl=0
  8. Hello Everyone, i hope you are all having a great day. I have been trying to import a shapefile which was created (exported) in QGIS. The shapefile has the elevation data within it but when I import this via Import Shapefile command I get contours but these are regular polylines. When I've imported shapefiles in the past it's been a pretty stratighforward event. Thanks in advance to any help. Below images are screen shots from QGIS showing the elevation data, then on VW. Shape file import.vwx
  9. @Tom W. and @Kevin K Thanks very much for your feedback. I used the extract face command and it did the trick. You learn something every day. Thanks again.
  10. Hello everyone. A question that I'm sure has a straightforward answer. I have a small curved retaining wall that's base is going to follow the existing terrain. I'm trying to provide a stone mason with the area or face of the wall in sq ft but for the life of me I don't see any area measurements available in the OIP. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.
  11. I have seen the same issue with plant data tags and I've ended up placing them within a design layer with their own class. Unfortunately the data tags don't behave the same within a viewport.
  12. @reGenerate Design it looks like you just need assign a texture to your vegetation-perennial class. I did so and it works. Just make sure you update the site model once you do this.
  13. Interesting to read this @unearthed I'm soon to be taking a QGIS course from the Regrarians...http://www.regrarians.org/product/qgis-for-mapping-and-design/ Are you using QGIS on farm scale projects?
  14. I had some challenges with hardscape objects in 2019 but these seemed to diminish with the current 2021. I see that is what you are running. You might want to post the file if you can. I usually use pads and place hardscape items on top of these.
  15. @hollister design Studio whenever you add a texture bed or other site modifier you will need to update your site model which is what the red/white outline is indicating.
  16. @alfresco are using the grade limits around your pads? If not this should help.
  17. @JuanP The link you posted doesn't seem to be working? It seems to time out.
  18. Thanks @JuanP I have am uploading this know, it might take a bit of time. Thanks for looking at this. @jeff prince thanks for the feedback, using tiles is a great idea and I have these as part of the deliverable s I received. I'll give that a try.
  19. Hello everyone I have a question that I haven't been able to answer as of yet. I just imported some shapefile contour lines from a drone survey and the 185 acre site model creation was quick and painless...yeah! The high resolution Tiff file (overhead view of site) is about 1.6 GB and will not import into VW or any other software I have which is not a total surprise. The drone operator has asked me what is the max size I can handle??? No idea...I do see that I've used images that are 200+ mb but I'm not sure of VW limitations. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks 😀
  20. When adding multiple site modifiers to a site model, it would be awesome if VW had an offset option specifically for modifiers. Perhaps a control that would allow someone the option of snapping to an existing modifier, this would automatically offset the new modifier by a per-determined distance (example might be 1mm). This way modifiers could be easily added to a model (in particular pads) without the inevitable conflicts occurring. This would certainly speed up my workflow on some projects, thanks for considering this.
  21. You should be able to import this into excel (https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Import-XML-data-6eca3906-d6c9-4f0d-b911-c736da817fa4) then export as a text file, This from the VW help menu Site model source data can be generated by tabular coordinate information from an external file. This file must be a text file with fields delimited by separators in one of the formats available. Hope your able to get this to work.
  22. You may need to create a pad beneath your stairs for it to rest on, also check into grade limits as a way to control the amount of space that is graded to accomidate the site modifier. Also your smaller pad would need to be next to but not touching your other pad. You might also be able to adjust the existing pad your walkway is using and modify it to take your stairs. Posting a screen shot might help. Hope that helps.
  23. I posted this within the site design forum but perhaps it is better suited here. Hello everyone I started having an interesting challenge on Friday with a small site model and a curved retaining wall site modifier that was inserted. I've never experienced this issue and hope others might see an easy fix. To clarify: I have a small site model (under 1/2 acre) that was created using survey 3d polygons. All the polygons have low numbers of vertices so the model itself seems stable and easy to move around. In this design we are placing a new retaining wall that curves across the rear landscape. The file is not huge 120+ mb It appears that when one creates a retaining wall site modifier in a curved shape that the results can cause severe slow downs and crashes in this file. If you take a look at the second image I attached you'll see countless lines coming from the site model and running behind the retaining wall, this is where I think the issue is If I delete the retaining wall site modifier the file behaves itself, when it's present I have to wait several minutes for the site model to update and for the open GL to render. Even then the open GL looks poor regardless of settings. This has never happened to me on my current computer. When I change the retaining wall shape and reduce the curves, add a new retaining wall site modifier makes for a more stable file. I can conclude that these curves are causing some issues with the site model and making the file un-workable even with a robust computer. Has anyone noticed this limitation before? It's not great for us as we often work with organic shapes. I've attached the file having removed everything but the site model, the wall, retaining wall site modifier and a small pad in front. No modifier conflicts are reported. I would love to hear peoples comments on this. Thanks for any thoughts you might have. Site model.vwx
  • Create New...