Jump to content

line-weight

Member
  • Content Count

    1,286
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

467 Spectacular

2 Followers

About line-weight

  • Rank
    1000 Club

Personal Information

  • Location
    London, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It doesn't look to me like @Danilo is talking about annotations - they talk about line types 'in' the viewport.
  2. Yes - to some extent. It's mixed with a feeling of nervousness that I will break something in the model, and then *all* of my plans, sections and elevations will need fixing, something that doesn't happen when you're doing things in 2d. But, so far, nothing too bad has happened. Absolutely agree about a clean model. It means investing quite a lot of time 'up front' but you get the payback at the end. There are some changes to the design that are ultra easy - adjust something a bit, and all of the drawings update, just like that. Unlike in the old days where a relatively trivial change meant a tedious process of going through all the relevant drawings and updating them one by one. Then there are some changes that aren't as easy. These are where VW's parametric tools can't do the job. For example, on this one, the walls were directly modelled - each layer of the buildup. This is because they had funny geometry that the wall tool simply couldn't cope with, and in any case it can't cope with the complexity of most eg. wall/floor junctions in such a way that I could extract construction details from them. So, moving a wall 100mm means making sure I catch all the relevant components, move them together, and then go round each of its junctions with other walls, floors and ceilings and extend/trim them as necessary (again component by component). This takes quite a lot of time... certainly compared to moving a wall that's been made with the wall tool. Now the project is being built on site ... there are certain changes I've decided it's not worth making in the model. For these, I can get away with annotations and a bit of 'cheating'. It might not matter if there's a slightly inconsistency between two drawings because the change has been discussed with the builder, and what's needed is understood. All that the drawing has to do is perhaps confirm a dimension or two. It's all about trying to make a sensible decision about what's necessary to draw (as has always been the case with draughting).
  3. @Jakerhp you might have seen from the other thread that that fix didn't work on another model. However - another thing to try: make the DTM such that no point along its edge is higher than any point within it. (I did this by drawing a 3d polygon around all of the source data, with elevation 0. Then cropping the model so this edge wasn't visible). This seems to have fixed 99% of my sections. (So far)
  4. ^^ well, I thought I had it, but trying to apply this to a more complex model with the same problem has failed. The only way I can get things to reliably behave is to remove all of the "spoil pile" site modifiers. They clearly corrupt the DTM somehow. So, giving up on this for now. Another few hours of my life wasted. Thanks Vectorworks.
  5. Yes. Since I wrote that post - I've taken one job (architectural, small scale) through to construction stage where none of the drawings have used top/plan. All floorplans are horizontal sections. I also managed to create quite a few of the large scale detail drawings, for construction, directly from the model, with relatively little adjustment in the annotation layer. I've had to accept a few compromises in how my floorplans look, but on the whole have managed to get much closer to what I want, with less fiddling around, than would have been the case had I tried to generate the plans for that job using top/plan mode.
  6. @Alan Woodwell I am not using it for cut & fill calculations in this instance. I am simply using the spoil pile modifier to create areas that are slightly higher than the underlying terrain. In this case, they are 100mm higher, and represent areas of paving with a 100mm kerb around them. This is the only modifier that will raise the site model surface parallel to the underlying terrain, rather than creating a raised area with a flat surface. Maybe you have been confused by my OP where I talk about problems showing 'fill' in sections. To clarify, when I'm talking about 'fill', I'm not talking about cut and fill. I was talking about the solid red fill style that is applied to the cut plane in a section viewport. It was missing in my section viewport - in other words the site model was showing as 'hollow' rather than solid red where it was cut.
  7. By the way some other things I realised: - Some of the errant cut lines in the section seemed to be caused by having "show 3d" ticked for the site modifier. The section would show a cut line through the modifier itself as well as the site model. This causes issues wherever the "show 3d" object is somehow displaced from the surface of the model (and I don't understand why sometimes they are and sometimes aren't) - Further errant lines were caused by the original polygons I'd converted to modifiers. Unless you tick the "delete source" box when you convert to site modifier, the polygon still exists, and seems (sometimes?) to show up in the section.
  8. Thanks, I'd be interested to know if it works for you. I also tried moving section lines slightly, and had the same result as you: sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. We'll see whether this latest fix actually works, or breaks again, next time I edit the model...
  9. For the benefit of anyone else coming upon this thread - in the post below I outline what my solution has been for fixing this problem. I think it is relatd to site modifiers. @zoomer you said you sometimes experience this issue... I'd be interested to know if my fix works for you as well.
  10. Here's what one of the site modifiers looks like when I select "show 3d". Half of it sits on the surface of the model, and half of it seems to be at zero elevation. I don't understand how it's ended up like this. I don't know if it matters, but I suspect it does and is linked to the problems. I don't know if there's any way of fixing it other than tracing over it with a new modifier, and then deleting it. The effect of this modifier is as it should be, when I look at the model in OpenGL. It's in the section viewport that something goes wrong. *edit: OK, so I think I have fixed it like this: (1) Select the troublesome site modifier in top/plan view (2) Convert to Group (it will now be a 2d polygon) (3) In the polygon OIP change from "screen" to "layer" plane (4) Adjust one of the vertices of the polygon slightly (5) Select the polygon and use "create objects from shapes" command to make it back into a site modifier (6) Now it seems to be fixed. Step (4) seems to be sometimes necessary and sometimes not. I think there may be some kind of bug involved in the "create objects from shapes" command. In the future I will try and stick to making site modifiers directly from the site modifier tool I think. Or maybe the bug comes when you edit an existing site modifier? Who knows. Doesn't look like anyone at VW is interested in finding out, anyway.
  11. It's the site modifiers that are causing the problem. If I delete them all, everything is fine. If I change them from 'spoil pile' to 'grade limits' everything is fine. There's something weird going on with them - if I look at the site model side-on, the site modifier objects are not 'flat' 2d objects; they seem to jump around in 3d space and this I think is somehow related to the mess-up in the section. I don't know how to change that though - other than by attempting to redraw them all.
  12. It's not at a minus number in my file - it is at zero. Not sure why you have 3d display set to "cut and fill"? But you can see the section is still a mess in any case.
  13. Is anyone able to at least confirm whether this problem is specific to 2018 / fixed in 2020?
  14. Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately: - Changing section style class to use at creation has no effect on my file - Changing site modifiers to be on site modifier DTM class has no effect on my file - Changing the model and modifiers to "proposed" rather than existing has no effect on my file. When I open your file, initially it looks like your screenshot, however the modifiers are 'pads' rather than 'spoil piles' as in my original file. When I change them to 'spoil piles' as they should be, the section reverts to the same mess that it was to start with. It looks like you have imported into VW2020 then converted back to VW2018. Are you able to generate a correct section if you open and edit it in 2018?

 

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...