line-weight

The datum is effectively a plane within the roof buildup. Say I have my datum set at bottom of joists but I want to change it to top of joists. The joists are 150mm deep, so I just want VW to offset that plane by 150mm but keep the roof object in the same place. The reason I might want to do that is top keep the top-of-joists on the same plane and then increase or decrease the joist depth. With something similar to what you can do with walls, I'd just ask for the old version of the roof face to be replaced with the new one such that the tops of the joists stay in the same place. That operation could be done without changing the datum within the roof object of course but it would be useful if I could then also move the datum within the object, because maybe I've decided that from now onwards that's where it's most useful to have the point of reference. This is true yes - the diagrams look similar but they are showing different things. It might be helpful if they didn't look so similar.

Ok, thanks. That's basically what I have done. It would be good if roof face styles could be replaced/edited with the same level of control as is possible for walls. Looks like the same applies to slabs.

I want to redefine where the datum is within a roof face, but I want the roof face to remain exactly where it is. So, previously the datum was on the bottom surface of the ceiling, but I want it to be in between two internal layers. The dialogue above initially looks a bit like the one you get when you replace or edit a wall style, which gives you a lot of options of what component to align in the old wall, with what component in the new wall. But actually it doesn't give you any of those options. When I click OK, the red line will stay in the same place in the model, and then the roof face will shift relative to it. So my ceiling will drop. Am I right to think, there's not a way to do what I want? I want to redefine the red datum line from where it is in the left hand diagram, to where it is in the right hand one. But I want my ceiling to stay exactly where it is.

As mentioned further up the thread, this discrepancy surely can't be intentional & I've filed a bug on it. The question is, which version of the behaviour is the one that's intended? If it's that the grade limits are required for pseudo-vertical edges, this business of offsetting something by a tiny amount seems a horrible workflow to me, and suggests that the pad with retaining edges modifier is the one we are supposed to be using. If it's that the grade limits aren't supposed to be required, then how would one make a level pad with sloping rather than vertical edges? The way I think I'd want the tool to work would be: if it is not surrounded by grade limits, then the edges are (truly) vertical, and if it is surrounded by grade limits, then sloping edges are formed.

and that's one benefit of using classes over layers - much easier to change the attributes of everything in a class than everything on a layer.

Does the newer "GIS stake" tool help at all? (Haven't tested myself)

When I used to draw in 2d, one of the main purposes of classes was to control & keep line types consistent. I'd have a thick line for section cuts, thin for elevational lines, dotted for above, etc etc. Each would have its own class and each would also have a colour to make them easily visible on screen (rather than relying on zooming line thickness). If only using layers, would you just do all this manually? So each time you want to change the type of line you are drawing, you have to go to the attributes and set it all to what you want, rather than just choosing the class? That sounds rather cumbersome to me.

Assume you mean that you'd place it in the annotation space of a sheet layer viewport? (Beware this thread is nearly 20 years old!)

Either way it doesn't seem right that the behaviour is different according to whether it's applied to an existing or proposed version of the site model object.

Ok. Thank you. For now I'll report the different behaviour when applied to existing vs proposed versions of a site model as a bug.

I might report it as a bug. Can you clarify what you meant when you mentioned ticking the "vertical sides" box - is it the one in my screenshots above? Would you agree this actually is not really relevant in this case? Another thing to clarify - the method you describe applies when configuration = planar pad - is that right? If I make configuration = retaining edge, then it seems like I have to follow the more complicated method (involving sending to surface and son on). But I seem to end up with the same result. So what's the purpose of "retaining edge"? Does it actually do something different, or is it effectively superceded by "planar pad"?

Hm - if I apply it to the Proposed model, then yes it does have vertical sides. And it doesn't seem to make any difference whether I have that vertical sides box ticked. As you say, the setting suggests it only applies to inner modifiers but it's the only "vertical sides" tickbox I could see that fitted with @Jeff Prince's description.

Here is what I'm doing: 1. draw rectangle 2. right click, "create objects from shapes", choose site modifier 3. I'm presented with this dialogue: 4. I've ticked the "vertical sides" box 5. Under "configuration" I choose "planar pad" (is that right?) 6. I click ok and I get this: 7. I update the site model and I get this, which isn't giving me vertical sides: What am I doing wrong? I get the same result if I choose "retaining edge" under the "configuration" options. This is using VW2025 update 3.1.

Can you explain which tool exactly? Is this something that's in Landmark only?

I've tried to replicate. I don't think what you're getting in the viewport has the clip cube applied. It's just that it looks exactly the same as it would, because the object happens to be symmetrical about the "cut plane". Try switching to a front or back view and I think you'll find it's showing you the whole object. Or add some extra geometry to the half of the object that's clipped out by the clip cube. I think you'll find it appears in your viewport because it's just showing you a wireframe elevation of the whole thing.