P Retondo

Katie, okay, I sent you the file. Let me know if anything interesting comes up.

Robert: VWA 10.1, Win2k Here's what I found to be the "problem": if I create my model without setting a border, things go well. I probably made 10 attempts to create my model, finally did it successfully (mind you, I've been creating site models for some time, usually without a hitch - but this is the first time I've attempted to create a model from which I could do a cut & fill calculation). Either there was something wrong with my border (it worked initially to create an existing model, but in retrospect was the cause of both errors and crashes), or there is something unstable about the border code. Most of the time when I attempted to create a "Proposed site model" object with the border in place, the program crashed. Finally, I abandoned the border, and everything worked as it is supposed to. I would recommend adding a border as the last step in any attempt to build a DTM. For those who are interested, I found that I had to work around apparent vestiges of DTM corruption that the undo command, combined with the DTM "Delete" command, did not remove. I did this by creating a fresh document and pasting the existing objects layer by layer into place. After doing a half dozen of these, I finally got smart and started saving two versions of the document - a "current" one and a "backup" that I could go back to after a crash. In this manner I was able to take the process a step at a time without having to go back to the beginning each time. Although I don't use Workgroup Referencing (my workgroup all use AutoCAD and refuse to switch), I imagine this is a process similar to that recommended above by zero. A few observations that I think would lead to improvements: 1) Robert's advice in a previous thread, about encircling a set of modified 3D contours with a "fence" object, does work correctly. Note that both the fence and all of the contours must be made members of the class "Site-DTM-Modifiers" (thank you, Robert!). This should be added to the manual! 2) As it stands, users need a more technical description of what is going on with each DTM command, so that we can know where the mines in the minefield are. (E.g., what exaclty does the "Cut and fill" command do - what objects with what names are involved in what?) 3) The "Delete" command under Sitework does not appear to remove all vestiges of a created DTM, in that a set of data that yielded a successful model will no longer work once attempting to back out and redo - the same data when copied into a fresh file will work correctly. 4) The ability to modify a site model to create a "Proposed" object is too limited. When I attempt to add, for example, a swimming pool excavation on top of a set of new contours, I run afoul of the "overlapping modifier objects" error. If the "Existing site model" object can be modified, it would seem logical that a "Proposed site model" object could be successively modified in the same way. All in all, despite the time it took to learn the little quirks of this tool, I came up with a cut and fill calculation about as fast as I could have done a rougher estimate manually. Next time, I hope to be able to reap the rewards of technology when doing this! [ 03-31-2003, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: P Retondo ]

Robert, I have been able to create a "Proposed DTM" with a pad and fence, per instructions in the manual. But I have been unable to do what you describe here. In fact, adding a second 3D polygon (open or closed) within the area of the fence causes the program to crash when calculating a "Proposed DTM" object. Query: once I have a DTM, can I just modify my 3D poly source data, update the "Proposed DTM", and then calculate the cut and fill? Or will updating in such a manner automatically modify the "Existing DTM"? It turns out that I am unable to make this calculation from two separately-calculated DTMs because no volume calculation is generated from a DTM created with 3D polygon data. [ 03-30-2003, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: P Retondo ]

Andy, I would guess you inadvertantly hit the "3" (PgDn) key on the keypad when you meant to hit "Enter." With all 2D objects, you wouldn't notice anything on the screen, but the effect would be exactly what you observed.

Brian, 2 questions: 1) are you setting the first point at (0,0,0) using the data bar? And, 2) is there some reason you use this technique instead of the extrude command?

Katie, glad you're on the case. This has been a very time-consuming (and paper-consuming) problem for me (VW 10.1, HP800 plotter, WinXP). I notice that when the plotter gives the message "Processing HP/GL-2" the print usually comes out okay, and when it just says "Processing" it doesn't. I'll try your suggestion about staying put until the plot begins. But with other architects on our network, the queue is often pretty long. Do I actually have to wait until physical plotting begins? Can I work in VW in the meantime? This is another embarassing VW glitch that has AutoCAD users in my office smirking. [ 03-28-2003, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: P Retondo ]

Yes, you're right. In fact, I had posted a wishlist item to join the tools as you suggest! I thought you might be unaware of the workaround.

Brian, I don't have time to try out your scenario right now, but I will later. My general observation is that I have been doing 3D work for years without encountering the problem you describe, but then again I never use the extruded rectangle tool. I always create a 2D object first then extrude it using "ctrl+E", which has always given me reliable and consistent results. Using this technique from an isometric view gives me rectangular objects which are tilted at 45 degrees with respect to 2 of the xyz axes.

Robert, thanks very much for your reply. Regarding item 3), I was aware of how to use the cut and fill tool after creating pads. But pads are not the only way of grading a site! I was hoping it was possible to compare two volumes created from a different sets of 3D polygons (orignal "topo lines" vs. modified), but if not I can always create them in duplicate documents and compare numbers.

I'm not sure you are measuring correctly. When you switch to an isometric view, you are not actually changing the working plane or the coordinate system. After you extrude your objects, rotate them using the 3D orbit tool - at this point you should see that they have the same extruded length. If that isn't obvious, create a working plane on one of their faces. Using the working planes palette, snap to that point of view, choose the i,j,k mode, then switch to a side view. In four of the possible views you should see the objects in profile in such a way that it is possible to measure their extrusion lengths accurately. The way I can tell that my 2D view is not aligned to the current working plane is that the 3D cursor's axis cue lines are not aligned up/down and side-to-side. [ 03-26-2003, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: P Retondo ]

You can load the old tools (sliding door, simple window 2) into your workspace from the workspace editor.

I have a few questions about DTMs that don't seem to be addressed in the manual: 1. Is it true that you can create only one DTM per document? 2. I frequently modify my DTM by changing the shape of the 3D polygons and regenerating the DTM. Sometimes I run into trouble doing this (errors). I had to delete all DTM info the last time this happened (even "Check polygons" command created an error ("-21"), until I deleted DTM). Any advice? 3. If I could generate two DTMs (one before grading, the other after, both generated from 3D polygons) I could calculate a net cut/fill by comparing the volumes of each. Is this possible without creating two documents? Is there a technical description of the DTM process that goes into a more "behind the scenes" description of what is going on than we can find in the VWA manual? VWA 10.1 WinXP

Chad, you are correct in saying that the fillet tool works in some situations. However, the fillet tool will not draw a tangent to a given point, nor will it draw a convex curve in situations where that might be desired. The fillet tool requires that I specify the radius, which can require a manual calculation. My request is to have a more goemetrically powerful tool. This capability would be particularly desirable for Civil Engineers laying out roads. In this discipline, and in many architectural situations as well, some control over start and/or end points for tangent arc fillets is important. At times it is also important to be able to create a string of tangent arcs, starting from given points with user control over radii. [ 03-24-2003, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: P Retondo ]

Use your Workspace editor to see if you have those tools, then add them to your workspace.

The existing tangency constraint does not enable us to draw an arc tangent to two other arcs. The math isn't too difficult - centers of adjacent tangent arcs must be colinear with the shared point of tangency. Could you add this capability to the tangency constraint? This could work one of two ways: 1) with arc by tangent point selected, after you establish tangency with the first object, a tangent/tangent cue would appear at the correct point on the second object, or 2) it would work like the line tangent/tangent capability (click on one, click on tangent/tangent cue on the second). AutoCAD has a pretty good tangency capability, whereby you can string together successively tangent arcs of different radii. If the arc-by-tangent mode could enable us to set the radius, we could have that capability as well. It seems to me to be more important to set the radius than to set whatever parameter "L" currently sets in that mode. If you could extend these concepts to include splines, it would be even more powerful. I realize that with continuously-changing curvature there is a difficulty in attempting to calculate an infinite number of possible tangencies in real time . . . [ 03-23-2003, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: P Retondo ]

You're on the right track. Copy your extrudes and stretch to make pieces of different lengths.

List is good, very good. Failing that, it would be just fine to have prompt responses in this forum indicating that a problem experienced is the result of a bug that NNA is aware of. That has happened with me quite often (thanks, Katie!).

I have an extruded object which contains an unexplained extraneous snap point. I have checked the polyline on which the extrude is based, and it does not have a vertex at that location. The extra snap point is located about 1/20" from the vertex of my triangular object, along one of its edges, which makes the accurate placement of this object very difficult. The extraneous snap point is actually a pair, one on each face of the extrude. I suspect that this is a bug, and if so, this indicates a very serious problem somewhere. VW 10.1 WinXP

Katie, in this regard, does NNA have future plans to incorporate OLE links so that Word and Excel files can be more simply included in VW documents? [ 03-18-2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: P Retondo ]

I have a file in which a model layer containing a number of objects and a layer link runs extremely slowly when the layer link is visible. It takes several seconds after clicking on an object for its properties to show up in the info palette. It's literally impossible to work with the file in this state. If I switch the layer link to an invisible class, the problem disappears immediately. When the layer link is visible, it reappears immediately. Layer options set to "Active Only." In its slow state, the program is using 100% of the CPU when stalled, even if the current operation is simply moving the cursor from one vertex to an adjacent one. This problem is similar to the way a drawing with a great number of snap points used to bog down when moving the cursor across it - but different. In this case, I'm not moving the cursor across more than one point. VWA 10.1 Win2K P4 2.0G 768 MB RAM

quote: Originally posted by jan15: quote:Originally posted by P Retondo: [qb] ... and do not allow container objects to have graphic attributes. ... This would disable an important feature of Groups, which is the ability to assign an Attribute to all the members of the group with a single click. QB] jan15, if you would reread my posts you will find that part of my suggestion is to retain the ability to assign attributes "en masse" to group member objects. This ability does not require that the group object itself have attributes, or be assigned itself to a class. Contrary to your assertion, the fact that a container object can have attributes that contradict the attributes of member objects is a problem in the internal logic of the program. [ 03-13-2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: P Retondo ]

Mbuck, I'm following your argument as far as it describes the problem - PIOs frequently create problems that are due to their particular use of classes. Whenever we get into an "object oriented approach," any attempt to incorporate graphic niceties (such as a hierarchy of line weights, etc.), not to mention flexibility to match the working styles of different users, creates complex difficulties. (If you want to see how mind-boggling this exercise can be, try to figure out AutoCAD's ADT system of "style" matrices.) But I must admit that I am stymied trying to understand the concept you propose as a solution. I would suggest that the term "scope," and your comparison to the notion of a variable's scope in programming, may not be apt. Scope in that context is a convention that allows the use of identically named variables, to allow the local use of common variable names like "x." Here we are talking about a different kind of problem, and I think the notion of scope is misleading. May I suggest that the problem with PIO-created classes has two aspects: 1) the potential contradiction between container object attributes and member object attributes (the most egregious of which is class name, because that carries with it the visibility attribute), and 2) the havoc which the creation of new classes plays on the saved sheets' setups. If we could address solutions to these two problems, that should take care of the problem. The solution to problem 2) need not be related to the nature of classes, but might address instead a way of keeping our sheet/view setups in order. This discussion has been very useful in highlighting the interaction between the concepts of layer, class and sheet setup.

Mbuck, I see what you are getting at. The problem with it, as I see it, is that classes are currently used in different ways, for a variety of purposes - including making area calculations for worksheets, to use an example I employ. I'm not sure how your proposed "scope" characteristic might affect such other uses. What I am more curious about is why you think this method is easier or simpler than simply creating sheets using the current layer and class controls? It is currently possible to assign a different class to each object, and to assign a visibility characteristic for each class within each sheet setup, with no limitations I am aware of. Using the saved sheets concept, it is possible to limit the visibility scope of any class or layer to one or more sheets/views. In my view, the approach to fixing whatever is wrong with classes should start from a concise statement of the current problems. The one problem I see clearly, and for which I have proposed a solution, is the contradiction which arises when an object is, in effect, subject to the attributes (including visibility) of more than one class: i.e., its own class, plus the class(es) of its container object(s). Also, I would not want to interfere with the flexibility that the class concept gives us to do a variety of things, some of which may not have yet been realized. Bear in mind that "saved sheets" was a concept that evolved from the way early users of MiniCAD started to use layers to construct all the sheets describing a building from a single file in which all the floors were constructed on top of each other, with x,y coordinates properly aligned.

Playing around trying to solve another problem, I noticed that the assymmetrical cavity problem only occurs with a PIO that has been converted to a symbol. As a PIO, the object is able to depict a door swing in any position and match the cavity configuration.

Can't find any reference to "implode loci" in my version (VWA 10.1), or in any of the documentation. What version are you using? Okay, found it in the old "Simple Window 2" insertion tool, and it does work as advertised! Solves both the wall color and 3D gap-at-narrow-trim problems. Unfortunately, this is not a feature of the new window and door insertion PIOs. Correction: "implode loci" does not solve the 3D gap with the "Simple 2" tools because the gap does not exist, with or without "implode loci" checked. The gap occurs only with the new window and door PIO when exterior and interior trim are of different widths - there is a void around the window or door on the narrow-trim side of the wall. [ 03-13-2003, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: P Retondo ]