ray isaacs

john, i have had issues importing dwg documents. but the z coordinates are accurate as created in the program that produced the dwg. did you check the document in autocad to verify the z coordiantes? ray

okay, jonathon, here's what now know. the problem seems to be the distance from the origin. based on feedback from jim at vss tech support, i copied the dtm into a new document, at the default origin. tried drape, but it failed. however, when i ungrouped the dtm and selected the resulting mesh, the drape worked as expected, yielding a good match. it seems that after changing the origin to be the center of my model, somehow vw remembers the original coordinates when executing the drape tool. and because if the distance, doesn't work properly. cheers, ray

okay...i went back to an early version with the original coordinates. when i drape that dtm, i get a tiny rectangle at the origin. i'm sending it to vss. ray

hi, jonathon. yes, it's selected. what drape is doing is creating a tiny (30cm rectangular) nurbs surface about 700,000 meters from my site model. now that happens to be about the distance the the original site data was from the origin. currently, the origin is in the center of my model. i tested this in a couple of other models and got almost the same result. i'm scratching my head. cheers, ray

hey, peter. reviving an old thread here. after working in rhino, in thought about trying the drape surface tool to create a nurbs surface of my site model. i can't get it to work. how do you do it? cheers, ray

simplify 3d polys...yes, absolutely. especially with imported dwg contours. i have reduced 3d polygons with well over 1000 vertices down to less than 100. multiply that by 50, 60 contours or more (we work on large, sites) and that's a huge reduction. you will find dramatic improvement with almost no noticeable loss in detail in the dtm. careful though, the simplify 3d poly command can make some dumb decisions. straying from yogi's question, bryan, have you ever imported site data in the form of .shp files from gis? something we are wanting to try. cheers, ray

do you think converting the 3d polys to loci would make any difference? i've done that, thinking that it might be better. but, i don't have any conclusive evidence.

bryan, we use 3d polys we get from an engineering service in dwg format. but, one of my tasks this summer is to see what the local alternatives are, as we have had some problems with vw's ability to process a lot of inputs. do you find in general that 3d loci work better than polys? any other suggestions regarding source site data? cheers, ray

bryan, do you mean altering the input site data, or changing the graphic properties of the dtm? my experience is that it is the complexity of the input data that makes a difference in the performance of the dtm. ray

i think you are on the right track. with too much information the dtm gets bogged down and unworkable. so, my first reaction is to make a simplified model of the whole site, using a greater contour interval--depending on the survey data you have--an greatly simplifying the 3d polys used to construct that dtm. this could be useful and fun to have for master planning, overviews, coordination, whatever. then save the more detailed site date to create specific sites as you need them for design projects and construction. cheers, ray

yes! something we've requested before, along with the ability to export images with transparent backgrounds, something c4d also does.

john, i assume you mean different drawings/views on one sheet layer. if that's the case, you can set the scale of each viewport independently. the scale of the design layer does not matter. ray

monadnoc, looking at the image, i agree with you that it does look that complicated. what is not clear to me is what you are trying to model with site modifiers, and what you are modeling with other 3d/hybrid tools. from the looks of it, it appear that most could be accomplished with textures applied to walls, floors, slabs, etc.--which are simpler and more stable than the dtm--then use site modifiers only for the few remaining elements that absolutely must follow the contour of the ground. maybe you are already doing that. cheers, ray

yes, peter, you can do that. that's what i use the second dtm for. and in a rendered perspective view it looks okay. but in top/plan it is almost impossible to get continous-looking contour lines, and in section it is a mess--but as bryan pointed out, sections thru the dtm are kind of a mess anyway. ray

absolutely! i have had to go to extremes to come up with solutions to underground structures (like inserting a second dtm--ridiculous, yes?). there has to be a better way. as for sections through site, bryan is right. i usually end up tracing over the section viewport then turning the dtm class off...not very sophisticated. ray

yes, christiaan, you are getting to the heart of the matter. and your wish at the top of this thread is certainly sensible. ray

if mesh smoothing is not working, it could be an indicator that your model is too complicated. if that's the case, try simplifying the original site data. cheers, ray

monadnoc, the dtm tool is both wonderful and horrible. it can be very frustrating. you are not alone. without seeing exactly what you are modeling it is hard to know what is happening. but, if the model is complicated as you say, then that could cause things to get weird. often the first indicator of being overly complex is that mesh smoothing stops working. have you noticed that? i have found that looking for ways to simplify the inputs (including and especially the original site data) helps tremedously. the effect is cummulative, so as you work you need to focus on simplicity, without of course compromising your design. also, polylines converted to site modifiers can cause problems (unless they fixed that in 2013). if you have polylines, convert them to polygons--then try to reduce the number of vertices. cheers, ray

monadnoc, this may not be the problem, but there is a known bug in harscape settings, draw 3d window. when you choose texture bed, assign main texture by class, you have to close the window, then reopen and assign the main texture by class a second time. just checked after installing sp3 and its still doing it. probably worth looking at the settings to make sure, cheers, ray

i have submitted a lot of bugs, both through service select--as i am doing at this very minute--and the bug submit site, especially with 2013. some of them were fixed, others i'm tole will take a long time, and others i don't know. quite frankly, i'm tired of having to do this. i don't appreciate being treated as a beta tester. i work with other programs, especially in my teaching, and we don't experience nearly as many bugs in those programs as i do in vectorworks. i wish they had some decent form of quality control. i simply don't have time for this. ray

j., i saw a video of a guy making an image prop of a vine to be placed on a trellis. he mapped the image as a texture onto a slightly curved plane. this allowed the vine to be viewed at different angles without looking flat, plus because of the transparency, the vine had the apperance of depth. i have not tried this myself, but i hope to in a current project doing something similar to what you are describing. maybe it will do what you want? ray

yes to the sticking preference, and yes to two way transfering.

glad that worked for you, j. i find that the cleanest solution. but, beware...when you make changes you need to keep track of all the pieces resulting from the clip. for example, one side walk can get cut into several bits by crossing roads, driveways, etc. cheers, ray

j., i wish it was as easy as using the "send to front" and "send to back" commands. but it isn't. unless they changed it, the one created first shows. newer ones are overridden. this gets to be a problem as you add more texture beds. for that reason, i do a "clip surface" so that the beds don't overlap (and i don't have to keep track of order). but that to can get clumsy. i wish we could just do the send commands, or something similar. cheers, ray

i got this message--or one very similar, can't remember exactly--and it turned out to be a problem with file permissions. did you check those? ray