line-weight

You should be able to click on the relevant points in the PDF even if you can't snap to them. I am quite often going through this process. You can zoom in to get your mouse click as accurate as is possible. If the PDF includes a scale bar I start from there. I'll click on the start and end of the scale bar ... zooming in as necessary (if it's rasterised then that means zooming in enough to see pixels and clicking as close as I can to what I judge to be the midpoint of a line). The fun starts when you realise the PDF has been scanned at some point and has ended up scaled slightly differently in X and Y directions...

What is the reason that you want to create a "new" model rather than just continuing to make further modifications to the original one?

I have had similar experiences trying to use the built in satellite imagery or maps - frequent failures to download or other errors. It shouldn't really be necessary to fiddle about with resolution to make it work. This part of the tools (image download from server) needs to handled much better I think. As it is, it can be very frustrating, especially when it can be a bit difficult to understand what's going on with the GIS tools anyway.

Ok, I see. It may be that you don't use the Structural Member tool in a way that is affected by its limitations. But I think there are many of us who do. Most of these limitations aren't necessarily bugs - I would call it something like incomplete implementation. And there are a few threads (like the one I linked to above) that outline these in quite some detail. This of course is a separate process from the bug submittal one - it's users letting VW know that the tool would be greatly enhanced if some time could be spent improving it.

Another example of an existing feature that desperately needs attention is the notes database & manager.

If this is the case, then the problem is exactly that: fixes and improvements being defined as "low priority". They should be a higher priority than the implementation of other, new, features.

https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/90654-structural-member-usability-improvements/

Exactly this. And the structural member is a good example.

The new features are fine and good. The problem as ever is the lack of progress in fixing all the "old features" which most of us would use every day if we could.

This was actually confusing me the other day and I wondered if something had changed in W2025. I had problems with a SM imported from a VW2023 file and I could only get the texture to work after creating a new one (might still have been user error though). You can set "by class" here in the SM settings circled in red. It took me a while to find this because the "texture" column circled in green doesn't offer "by class" as adirect drop-down option whereas "attributes" next door to it does. You have to click and open a dialogue box and find the "by class" button at the top.

Have submitted.

My guess is that @Scott Schwartz, AIA is thinking that the suggestion is to use a bunch of 2d SLVPs on a sheet layer rather than a bunch of 3d DLVPs assembled in 3d on a design layer(s).

And, not having used the SM tool in anger for a few months, this is tripping me up all over again. Had to come back to read this thread to remind myself how to stop SMs auto-connecting when I don't want them to.

It's very frustrating that we still can't lock the slope angle whilst adjusting the span or length of a structural member. The most simple operations become much more convoluted than they need to be.

Another question for @Matt Panzer I think.... is this a bug?

Another version, now with viewports 10 & 11 added. This is the system I am going to use for now I think. I have to accept stacked viewports, and some manual work done in annotation space. I may get around to making this into a proper VE submission at some point...however I've already spent rather a lot of my own time messing with this and now need to get on with the actual drawings that earn me some fees for a bit. I think all the info is here in this thread for anyone who wants to look at what does and doesn't work in HSVPs as far as site models are concerned.

That explains what confused me then!

If assign it to a dedicated class, and "make all attributes by class" then those attributes are carried through into what I see in section.

Does that remain the case if you go the site model's graphic properties and change the pen colour under "2d site border attributes"? So that this is no longer controlled by <site model class>?

Right, of course. Had everything set to "by class" except fill. So as far as I can understand, in a section viewport, for the cut plane through a site model object: - The pen is determined by whatever is set under "2d site border" in the graphic properties of the site model object. - The fill is determined by whatever fill is set in the attributes of the site model object itself - Whether or not "draw site border" is ticked in the 2d display settings of the site model has no effect on these settings - However, unticking "draw site border" stops the pen type chosen for section purposes appearing in plan views of the site model. It doesn't really make sense to me that these two separate things (the outline of the site model in plan, and the outline of the cut plane in section) should share the same attributes and be controlled by the same thing.

Not quite sure what setting you mean here?

I have: (1. temporarily turned off "components" for the site mdoel) 2. Turned off "draw site border" in the site model's settings 3. Set "2d site border" attributed to be <site model class> (as per screenshots below) 4. Put the site model in its own "site model object" class 5. Set the attributes of that "site model object" to have a certain pen and fill But I still get the same: the pen has effect on the section line in my section viewport but the fill colour seems to have no effect (fill simply remains white)

So... the problem with just making a "hole" in a site model using a pad modifier is this: You get a hole with vertical sides: And in a section viewport which uses objects "own attributes" for the cut plane this looks something like this, once a building is placed in that hole: The thick green line is the outline of the cut through the site model. [As an aside - this line's attributes seems to be controlled by "2d site border" in its graphical components settings. Is that what's supposed to happen? And I can't work out what controls its fill] Those vertical sides can't have any kind of undercut, so if you have something like this strip foundation, there is this kind of problem where the green line crosses the foundation: If I could simply tell the site model to draw the surface of the ground but nothing for the sides & bottoms of these holes, then this issue would go away - but I don't think that's possible - there doesn't seem to be an individual setting that controls these elements. I was curious to see what happens if I use "components" in the site model. If I use two (each determined by a dedicated class) then this happens. I am using a green upper layer and a brown lower one. I noticed that the sides & bottom of the hole seem to take the attributes of that lower layer, so I wondered what would happen if I turned off the class that determines the attributes of that lower layer, and it is this: Here is what I now get in section: The unwanted bottom & sides have disappeared and I get a kind of shell surface to the terrain (I can adjust the thickness of this). I can then go ahead and use a 2d polygon in annotations to "fill in" the ground. It would be nice not to have to do this, but it at least works, and I can always "live check" & adjust the ground line if there are changes to the site model. As can be seen in the screenshots, this change to the "components" approach causes various types of mayhem with mesh triangles appearing where they weren't before (including in top/HSVP views), but my next step is to understand what's controlling that exactly.

@Matt Panzer ok - taking a closer look I see what you mean - so sadly it's rather further away from providing what I want, than I thought. It also makes me realise that what I thought was a usable workaround has some issues. Attached is a revised version of the file where I've added "viewport 8" which shows basically how my (best current effort) workaround works. From your comments above it sounds like it's not going to be easy to make site models compatible with HSVP workflows, if the strategy is to use the 2d component of the site model. I don't know if there are any ways in which something using the site model's "3d contours" could be made to work. For example, if in my example, I was just able to tell the viewport to show the 3d contours in a different pen, that would get me 80% of the way towards what I want, and would provide something acceptable "for now". VB site model v2.vwx