zoomer

I learned that you can do a custom selection for screen plane objects and convert them. Unfortunately that will not effect any objects inside Groups or Symbols (In my cases mostly 80+ %) And AFAIR you may select them separate by object type to be able to change to Layer Plane via OIP at a time. And AFAIR the number of found screen plane objects may have gone up again after converting them (?) As long as you only reference such files and bring them in by Design Layer Viewport mode, that should not be an issues. If you bring them in into your master file, it will have legacy 2D enabled now too, until you cleaned up again. AFAIR it was also not possible to convert screen plane objects hidden in Container Objects with any VW scripting. So you would need to explode/ungroup everything to really get rid of screen plane and all legacy 2D stuff.

Usually VW has no random options. AFAIK it is only for Plant Areas in landscape that offers some randomization. But AFAIK you can do such things with Marionette, I think it has a randomize node. And if not AFAIK you could add som custom (Python ?) code. On the other hand, you could create such geometry in any random capable 3D App (Blender, C4D, Modo, .....) and import it back to VW. If it is only about 2D or 3D Polygons ....

Well Screen Plane is deprecated, I can keep my files screen plane screen, but not get rid of screen plane from client imports or underlays ... But it is a good start. And for all that still need screen plane, you can bring it back easily or it is still there for migrated files that had it in use. But basically all trouble is about naming and dual use with the dynamic plane feature. (Hey, Image Props have another "look at Camera" feature, could be replaced by just Screen Plane. Would only need a rotate only about Z lock option)

Looks like you are on Windows and that feature, so far, seems to be Mac only.

Hi Jesse, I understand what you are doing here. But I think these are just misunderstandings or different use of definitions. Of course, if you extract Faces from a 3D Objects, these new faces use the initial 3D location and orientation. (if they are true 2D elements, I do not get why there is not offered any "flatten" command or set to "Layer Plane" ...) And I did not yet tried to let VW create 2D appearances from 3D Symbols so far ..... But I would have expected that I can edit these 2D front/side/top geometries, as I most times need to clean them up or sort them to LODs anyway, as always and just assign Classes, line weights and such ... If not .... not so good. But the essential principal of a VW "Screen Plane" is its difference to other XYZ or CAD Planes/UCS/WCS, .... that it is a dynamic Plane, that actually rotates and reorients to your View Screen surface whenever you rotate your View in 3D. The only reason for screen plane that is useful is like putting text/icon or info labels along your 3D Elements so they are always oriented to the Viewer and legible, whatever you navigate your 3D Viewport. Like a video of a 3D scene with 2D overlays done in a video editing software that always follow their parent 3D Objects .... (And some VW users make use of that in a very creative way) But that is as niche feature/usage which is seldom needed. Most times Screen Plane Objects just annoy in any 3D View. Their real location is not predictable or legible. So I postulate that users, and VW, misuse screen plane in many other ways than its "screen orientation". There is no reason to have 2D parts of Symbols or Hybrids to ever orient to monitor ! They have to orient perpendicular to a Section derived Viewport, which is usually in XY plane on your 2D Sheet Layer. Everything that is 2D only I would describe by XY coordinates first. Because it is has no thickness or 3rd Dimension. If any 2D needs to be seen in a 3D context - it is 3D ! and needs 3 coordinates. And I have not seen in any case so far where that Screen Plane is needed in any way that would not be possible to describe by just a much more adequate XY, XZ or YZ Plane. So just keep one of the 3 Axis zero and it is clear that it is 2D and should be flat. if it is rectilinear in 3D add a Z but keep the "same" for all these objects. I postulate that VW does use "Screen Plane" wrong in 98%. Either they take away that disturbing dynamic screen orientation feature and rename it to something like "our-special-2D-plane-that-makes-sure-that- content-is-2D-onlyand-oriented-properly-to-our-current-pupose-in-or- from-our-tool" or use proper coordinate systems. 2D that auto aligns according to purpose - or just proper 3D in 3D Space. And it looks like VW decided to get rid of this problem by deprecating that wired Screen Plane thing, which I highly welcome. But so far, in reality, there is still no chance to really get rid of Screen Plane. No chance to get Screen Plane out of all Containers like Symbols or Groups. But for all screen misusing workflows outside, I am 100% that there would be reasonable suitable plane definition or workaround that can offer at least the same functionality if not more and more consistent.

While I can't imagine that complex NURBS surfaces could be a valid source element for site modifiers .... I think it would be cool. While typical modifiers usually produce an artificially straight slope with hard edges at bottom and top, with NURBS surfaces you could control a more natural look similar to your example. (E.g. erosion would "fillet" the top edge and offload it at the bottom which will flatten the slope at bottom) I usually try to manually edit my proposed DTM vertices to smooth things out. Of course there are also nice landscape examples of geometrical hard edged slope formations done by intention. But usually we are used to natural forming and nature is more grungy than simplified geometry.

BTW File migration (VW 2024 SP0 (?) And there was one "standard" Door (no sidelight, just a transom - but Jamb extensions) which after migration had its Jamb extensions "mirrored" a door width outside of Door and Wall free in space. While I do not see a reason why I should have ever mirrored that door. And mirroring did not bring jamb extensions back in position. AFAIR I healed it by extracting from and reading to Wall. Also my 4 most heavily back and forth edited Windows lost their insertion depth position and or offsets. While most others using same Style did not. (While their "impossible" wall closures settings seem to magically work now)

And I also noticed VW somehow does not like unequal lights - for Windows ... Window Type custom to create e.g. unequal bi-fold or vertical sash cobinations. When I assign the hight value for the upper Sash for unequal sizes and later change other things like tilt to glazing or things like frame thickness .... each time the modified Sash height jumped back to default for equal sized openings.

Thanks for all answers and bug reporting !

Really !? Why not just assigning a XY, XZ or YZ Plane by keeping the 3rd Axis zero ?

I didn't really use VW (2024 SP2 on Sonoma) so far .... But I also notice some lags when opening, beside my current file, just another empty new file from a template. (No matter if my own migrated or a VW blank template) And playing with a bit between medium/max GUI option finally needed a VW restart as I got 3 non functioning ghost palettes of my (auto)collapsed Resource Manager and all palettes looked undocked and overlapping each other .... Just going to Home Screen or closing and restarting the File did not help.

OK I took the Bolt demo file from here : https://www.rhino3d.com/plugins/bongo/docs/sample-models/ Arrgghh, Bricscad Rhino Import is Windows only .... But I went through all PC hazzles. Bricscad imports (the screw part only !? ****) but it is a true ACIS Solid : So I think, if VW would it could also import Generic Solids. I just assume, as VW also has NURBS functionality, they wanted to keep the NURBS control (?) (***) Probably because the Washers seem to be hollow, as it looks for the VW NURBS Faces import ....

@Matt Panzer Oh, I got it now .... I do not need to "mirror" my Doors (with a side light). I searched for and expected, a left+right sidelight checkbox/setting option but it was just hidden in numeric inputs .... Nevertheless, this way I was now able to re-orient my Doors with a side light correctly ! (BTW 1 Why did 23 to 24 migration "mirrored" my Doors in the first place !?) (BWT2 is there an option to find which Objects you mirrored - later - which you shall not had mirrored) However, geometry of the Doors (using Jamb Extension + top + side lights ...) looked much better at first glance in VW 2024. 👍 But I still see some strange overall Door appearance in Top Plan View (strange interrupted Lines at Wall thickness level) and I am not able to control my "Thresholds" ("Under Leave only" !?) Of course that happens in 3D also, not only top plan view .... So in case anyone interested in, I will add a Screenshot and Test File. What I want is a "Threshold" that mimics a 5 mm iron L-Profile, used to stop/seal the Door Leaf bottom side (Usually there is a 2 cm height level difference between both Floors) and to separate the Floor Materials between Rooms of a 1960ies residential house. Untitled 3.vwx

I did not really speak for VW imports 🙂 I just meant that AFAIR I have seen that already or think it would be possible that importing Rhino could bring in Solids .... Was there a link to any suitable Rhino File that I could test .....

I think Rhino is not Mesh based. It is mostly NURBS based. So like a Mesh it feels like non-Solid but (NURBS)Faces only. But Rhino can make feel its volumetric NURBS Faces like Solids or NURBS Faces like simple planar Faces. (BTW, I hate that 2nd order NURBS cross in each Face ... AFAIK if you do not actively suppress this, it will also export Faces that way) Just if you are an unexperienced user and use the wrong Tool, you likely will accidentally pull out a Solid's Face or distort one of your planar Faces with ease. So I think between most clear (ACIS, Parasolid, ...) CAD Volume Modelers and typical Mesh Modelers (Blender, 3DSMax, C4D, Modo, Maya, ..........) or some do it all combos like FormZ, Rhino is its own phenomena with NURBS first approach. But I would bet that Rhino "Volumes" can come into other Apps (Bricscad (?)) as Solids if needed. As it also seems towork by IFC imports, but I would need to test that if that also works with IFC exported from true Mesh Apps, like via BlenderBIM .....

I think this is Modo's Modifier Stack or Blender's Geometry Nodes or even iterative things like Grasshopper. Or something like Mechanical CAD (?) But where can you do that in VW ? Edit Path or Profile in EAP, change the Profiles of an Extrude ... just 2 steps. With Solid Add/Subtraction/... and Fillets, you will get a few more steps. But AFAIR editing components of multi step Solid Subtractions wasn't very reliably for me in the past (?) Or with Marionette ... as long as you stay inside your Marionette envelope ?

I like destructive modeling. Starting with Microstation I was used to make copies/backups of important model steps, if needed. 3DSMax like C4D worked primarily with modifiers, so non destructive. But I soon realized that I can convert everything to a Mesh and edit all parts at a time, without losing any control. Modo at the beginning was absolutely destructive modeling only and I did not miss anything. When in a destructive modeler, you just need to have the proper editing tools which Modo had. And as far as Selections, Item Tree/manager, Object Info, Modeling and Editing Tools, Preview, Render Settings, Material control, .... I still miss that standards in any other 3D or CAD Apps so much. On the other hand I like parametric Objects in CAD/BIM. I even prefer it for architectural modeling. Like VW's PIOs and Styles. I could not live with my basically totally destructive Bricscad's Solids modeling approach though. And for Solids I do not want any history I want them to be cleaned up, optimized and simplified for absolute reliability after each operation.

I usually copy the Reference files as they are into a "VW Version before" Subfolder. Batch Convert the original References in place to VW Version current files. So I can open the migrated master file in VW Version current and the References are still working. Of course, if you want to open the previous master file version, you need to relocate your References again though. But usually I did not have so much problems with the newer VW version that I would need to go back. An alternative is to rename References according to VW Versions. Needs a single reloading References for each VW upgrade. But you can still open your previous VW file version's References without issues. Or you could copy the whole file related parts of your project folder with each VW upgrade and run batch convert for all VW files including all subfolders. So likely not the answer you hoped for and not very comfortable. But I think I would not have a better idea how to organize these upgrades or what VW should make better (?)

I think Mograph is ok. But that was reserved for decades for a C4D Studio or that other Version. It was not available for base C4D or Architecture. Therefore there happened some alternatives like surface spread. Maybe even easier to use in our non motion graphic usage. But since there C4D is only available as the full package, it may not always be worth to use one of the alternative replicators.

BTW, I would prohibit that. I am an idealist, not pragmatic or result orientated. I am not interested to see the mediocre reality but the initial idea. When I would get a such point cloud or site measurement, in my other CAD, I would use Face Detection and let it create Walls and Slabs from it .... but immediately after I would start Optimize Command Suite - with a 15° and 2 cm Tolerance and let flatten it to the way it was meant to be build. I mean, even Egyptians were able to level their pyramid sites exactly and for their Obelisks, even those made of rough stones, you can feel that they used a lead line and the overall appearance is absolutely straight. So if that idealism does not fit the build reality and ideal planning results in problems fitting things in I would advice the customer to use a Milling Machine to bring that back to order. 😅

I would not argue that your Section Line has not the exact same angle. But could imagine that the Section Engine, when estimating the parallel-ness of the Symbol for sharp angles, may potentially find a little difference in 12th+ digit that it assume it is not square to Section and decides to reject the 2D addon and start the Symbol appearance calculation from the Symbols 3D part instead (?) So like the Photomatch Tool that gets crazy when your photo is nearly from a 1 point perspective (?)

When I read this my first thought was ..... ohohoh, will this work ... I would think it is a general computer accuracy problem. The more "only slightly off" the angle the worse ? I would assume 30° or 45° would be much less error prone.

I think click to select and DEL or BACKSPACE. But maybe you do not need delete it. When Selected you can set it temporarily to invisible in object browser or just move it downwards. But if you check object browser, you should already if your VW data came in or not. EDIT : I read you already see the data in manager, but not on screen. And if I got that right your DTM should be at a positive Z height .... Then it might be a different problem. Not sure if I ever exported a VW DTM to TM so far.

Usually when nothing is there it is geometry sub Z 0,00, which will just be occluded by TM's default ground plane at Z 0,00. You can delete that default ground plane and check if your geometry was below or is really not there.

I also think it should be that way. I just have seen it also different.