line-weight

Thanks for the explanations @Matt Panzer. Before submitting a VE request I think I'd like to clarify what things are actually bugs - because actually maybe it can already do what I want it to, if the bug(s) are fixed. See attached file and screenshots. - In viewports 4 & 5 it seems to know the "tree trunks" should be visible above the site model, but not the curved steps...why's that? - In viewports 6 & 7 it fails to draw the portion of the "tree trunks" between the cut plane & ground surface. Is that a bug? VB site model.vwx

@Matt Panzer, the behaviour where it only shows the 2d component if not intersected by the cut plane, is this intended rather than a bug? I don't really see in what scenario this would be useful.

If I open the file (and update the viewport) I don't get quite the same result - I can see the mirror but it does not have the hatch fill that it should have. Exploding/ungrouping the symbol it's part of fixed it. I also tried changing it from an extrude to a generic solid - and this caused it to disappear altogether in the section view (it was still present in 3d). It's part of a "flipped symbol" and occasionally I find odd things happen with flipped symbols so maybe that's relevant?

One of the issues there would be that the HSVPs would not cover the site model contours (this would be less of a problem if they could accept solid fill, hence my earlier question). There's a whole other thing about 3d objects that intersect the site model at non vertical angles. Vectorworks knows where they intersect the site model surface because it can show me in shaded view. But getting this to show as I want it when using stacked viewports gets complicated. Think of a non vertical tree trunk, represented by a cylinder. In my ideal world I'd like my plan to show the trunk above the surface (in elevation), I'd like to see the line where the trunk intersects the surface, and I don't want to see any of the trunk that is below the surface. And if my cut plane is intersects the trunk I want to see that too. Using my normal setup, all of this is easily achieved if the ground surface is modelled as, say, a generic solid. But if it's a site model object, it's not.

It's the same answer as for any scenario where I use an HSVP - the fact that Top/Plan can't correctly draw large portions of my models due to the way I build them, using solid modelling and objects that don't have 2d components.

Then what's the point of all the tools that allow us to rotate the globe in the background? They should come with a health warning that although you can do this, various other bits of Vectorworks can't co-operate with it.

I realised that there was a problem with the various options I posted above: I always have my sections set up so that anything "beyond the cut plane" is drawn in a specific linetype determined by a "lines in elevation" class - rather than using objects' "original attributes". My workaround using a site model snapshot with extruded contours relied on those contours being drawn in elevation which meant that couldn't use a different linetype for contours vs other geometry seen in elevation. So my best solution for now is a stack of two viewports, one with a "beyond the cut plane" linetype for contours and the other with a "beyond the cut plane" linetype for other geometry. A site model snapshot is not necessary - the site model 3d style is set to show mesh plus 3d contours, and then mesh and contour attributes are set by classes which are controlled per viewport. All a bit of a bodge. I would like to find a much better method. On the left, what it looks like when the cut plane is above the site model. On the right, when the cut plane intersects the site model. A stack of two HSVPs in each case.

Ok, I've always been a bit unclear about this - it only really becomes relevant once you're trying to stack viewports. So hidden line can show fills for the cut plane but not for planes that are seen in elevation.

A question... Does this setting, when used with hidden line rendering, actually do anything? It doesn't seem to. If I specify a class with a solid red fill, for example, nothing appears filled in red in the hidden line rendering.

You can put several pages on one sheet, if that helps. There was a thread about this not that long ago.

Are you able to post a file or file extract? (Very nice drawing by the way - it's good to see someone else producing construction details direct from the model like this.)

That's my conclusion. And if this issue has not been fixed with any urgency, then even if it eventually is, the worry is that some other thing will come up and the same will happen. It's sadly just another instance of a new shiny thing being introduced and then abandoned.

Ok - thanks - I see that the cut plane was intersecting a small part of the site model, and when I raise it, then the 2D component shows. There are some problems with this though. Here is a section through the site - you can see two buildings are set into a sloping hillside. First - if I want to use an HSVP to create a floorplan for either of those buildins, it's necessarily going to have to intersect the site model. Second - if I am satisfied with both buildings being represented as roof plans, then of course I can raise the cut plane higher. But then VW loses any consciousness of where things are in 3d space and it simply draws the site model on top of the buildings: (Here, it's drawn part of the roof of the upper building but that's only because I've used roof faces there. Very often a lot of my model is direct-modelled with solids) So, presumably I'd have to put it on a different layer and put it at the bottom of the stacking pile? But I can foresee various potential problems with this, for example anything below ground I may have to put on a dedicated layer and so on. All of this loses the big benefit of the HSVP which is that you can let the computer do the work deciding what's occluded by what, and so on, rather than fiddling with all the top/plan workarounds. It's a shame the site model can't simply be sectioned as a 3d object, but have its top surface represented as contours rather than mesh polygons. The best result I've got so far is making a snapshot of the site model with "extruded contours" as its 3d style, and using this for the site plan in a "top" view: Of course this means I can't have the contour heights labelled automatically. The snapshot method works for a HSVP with floorplan too: If I was dealing with a model where the floorplan cut plan did not intersect the site model (which is the more common situation) then, using this method, I'd have to turn 2d components off, which might be inconvenient when I need to show 2d components for other objects in the floorplan. In that case we are back to something I've requested before which is the ability to turn 2d components on/off per object or object type, rather than just per viewport!

Sorry, I misread, thought you were saying there are general issues in wireframe (ie. would apply to top/plan) but I see you said hidden line. Yes, the site model tool seems to be designed mainly to work in a top/plan view. However, there are quite a few objects like that and in general they can be made to work OK in HSVPs if you tick the "display 2d components" box. But ticking that box seems to have no effect on site model objects. Perhaps @Matt Panzer is able to comment?

Yes it looks a bit like it's going to have to be one of those solutions. Or maybe I just turn off the site model in floorplan views (but really I'd like to show it in a site layout where I'd like to show it plus building outlines). What are the main issues in wireframe?

I've used the "geolocate" tool to rotate the world relative to my drawing orientation.

It seems you are right. Including a heliodon lets the north arrow rotate to match the heliodon. But the heliodon doesn't automatically rotate itself to match the file's georeferencing. So I have to do this manually. This is all rather disappointing, as I'd assumed one benefit of setting up my project to be georeferenced would be that things like heliodons and northpoints would automatically point in the correct direction.

It seems that it's not possible to show a site model in its "2d style" in a horizontal section viewport. What gets drawn is its 3d style - regardless of whether "display 2d components" is ticked in the viewport's settings. This means that if the site model is set to display as a mesh in 3d, that's what gets drawn in the horizontal section viewport. This is not very useful - if a Site model is going to be shown in a HSVP then it I'd say the most useful way for it to be shown is as contours. Of course I can change the Site Model's settings to display as extruded contours in 3d, which works OK for the HSVP but I don't want it showing as a series of steps in vertical sections.

I seem to be having the opposite problem to what is described above. I want to place a north arrow into the annotation space of a viewport. The viewport is looking at georeferenced desgn layers. When I place the north point, it initially looks like it is going to point the right way but when I insert it, it simply points upwards. Screen Recording 2024-12-10 at 13.48.31.mov

Not sure, as I do use storeys but only ever use one and put all layers in it.

In which case you can just ask elevation benchmarks to report relative to storey elevation - so actually no need to have a formula to subtract project elevation from AOD elevation, is that right?

I think this dialogue box needs more explanation and also, is there a good reason that we can choose "always project pasted objects" but not "never project pasted objects"?

Thanks. I sometimes use the Z value as a quick means of getting something at the right height. That's obviously more convenient if zero relates to something useful like floor level. Going to have to have a think about this.

I see. So in your model, if you (for example) place a 3d locus on your finished floor level, then in the 3d locus's OIP it will show the elevation above sea level?

It occurs to me that it would be useful to be able to tie some stuff to the "project elevation" and some stuff to the real world. For example, if I have a site model (or any already-existing buildings) once I have got them at the right height, they are never going to move. However, through the course of a project it's very likely that I might want to adjust the height of the datum level for the new construction, relative to the outside world. Therefore I am imagining that I could set my "project elevation" at some height above sea level, and then if halfway through the project I wanted to raise it by 100mm, I'd change the project elevation, and nothing would happen to any of my elevation benchmarks etc, but the whole building would raise relative to its as-existing context. As far as I can see though, that's not how this works? If I change the project elevation then everything shifts (relative to the outside world) including things like site models?