Amanda McDermott

Just to add another vote for this please!

That is what I would assume you need to do as well - another request for the software development team please, it would be much more useful to be able to use the same symbol and assign it a variable size! Doesn't make sense to duplicate the same species as multiple symbols, increased risk of error, forgetting to edit both if you want to change something else about the species in another field.

@Wes Gardner Thanks - it's hypothetical at present, we tend to be working with an architect who would design a building, and we're working around it. I suspect not bothering with stories is the answer! I asked because I know my colleague was having trouble the other day with a sloping site where she couldn't get the trees to sit nicely on top of the sloping 'terrain' (which actually was just drawn as a 3D poly I think rather than a terrain model - still, should be able to get one 3D 'thing' to snap to another, surely?) Can stories be set to a slope, theoretically?

We haven't experimented with stories yet, but just wondering whether the community has any thoughts on whether they would be useful for a sloping landscape site (as most are!) or whether to steer clear unless you're working on a building with flat planes (which we're generally not, we are landscape architects and it's usually not as simple as flat terraces!)

I have noticed this too - it is a particular nuisance if you are working at one scale, and wanting outputs at different scales in different viewports. Vectorworks, could we put it on the list as a graphic that it would be great to have more control over, please?!

Hello, I haven't been involved in planting plans much since we got Vwx 2019, but I always used to create the plant in the plant database in the first place, then assign that definition to a symbol. Then it's automatically in the database. I thought Vwx 2019 had a better system though, and would auto-update each from the other, shame if that's not the case! Amanda

Thank you Tamsin.

Hello, I have posted the following on the landscape section of the forum, but want to draw it to your attention as it contains a 'wishlist' request (in bold). Thanks. We are trying to create a hedge with multiple species in it, that is not simply linear (i.e. it needs to turn corners) and use 3 staggered rows. Ideally we would like to use the hedge tool to do this for accurate numbers (landscape area tool appears to miscalculate because it is based on m² rather than linear m). Hoping somebody might have a useful, reliable, workaround for this you can recommend please? We referred the problem to Service Select, but their (very slow!) response was as follows: There isn't a Hedge tool and the Plant tool can only plant an single species in one group, but you could create your hedge by putting lots of different plants together. Alternatively, the Landscape Area does have a Meters on Center option My answer / further observations: There is a ‘hedge’ setting in the ‘Plant’ Tool, which is what we were referring to. It would be very useful if this could be developed to allow multiple species, and staggering of the hedge rows. Neither of the current workarounds provides a satisfactory and reliably calculated route to what Landscape Architects often need, which is a staggered double or triple row hedge of several species (e.g. a mixed native hedge) that is able to ‘turn corners’. Problems with the current workarounds (see attached screenshots): The ‘plant tool’ will not allow multiple species. Attempting to create a single species hedge in a ‘triangular array’ (staggered) with the plant tool does not work to display a hedge, it has to be done ‘along poly edges’ and then multiple rows displays as a grid, rather than allowing staggered rows. The ‘Landscape Area’ Tool, although it will allow plants to be organised by ‘Metres on Centre’, doesn’t show them as staggered rows, and you have to draw planting by working out the depth to draw a shape depending on spacing and row numbers, then check against 3D view to see how many rows you have. This is not easily edited as ‘3 rows based on a line’ would be. It is arranged as a grid rather than following a path, so that anything but a straight hedge is particularly challenging. Even on a small, simple scale, you can see in the attached screenshots that the calculated numbers are coming out at about 10% different for each of these workarounds. Thanks, Amanda

Hello all, We are trying to create a hedge with multiple species in it, that is not simply linear (i.e. it needs to turn corners) and use 3 staggered rows. Ideally we would like to use the hedge tool to do this for accurate numbers (landscape area tool appears to miscalculate because it is based on m² rather than linear m). Hoping somebody might have a useful, reliable, workaround for this you can recommend please? We referred the problem to Service Select, but their (very slow!) response was as follows: There isn't a Hedge tool and the Plant tool can only plant an single species in one group, but you could create your hedge by putting lots of different plants together. Alternatively, the Landscape Area does have a Meters on Center option My answer / further observations: There is a ‘hedge’ setting in the ‘Plant’ Tool, which is what we were referring to. It would be very useful if this could be developed to allow multiple species, and staggering of the hedge rows. Neither of the current workarounds provides a satisfactory and reliably calculated route to what Landscape Architects often need, which is a staggered double or triple row hedge of several species (e.g. a mixed native hedge) that is able to ‘turn corners’. Problems with the current workarounds (see attached screenshots): The ‘plant tool’ will not allow multiple species. Attempting to create a single species hedge in a ‘triangular array’ (staggered) with the plant tool does not work to display a hedge, it has to be done ‘along poly edges’ and then multiple rows displays as a grid, rather than allowing staggered rows. The ‘Landscape Area’ Tool, although it will allow plants to be organised by ‘Metres on Centre’, doesn’t show them as staggered rows, and you have to draw planting by working out the depth to draw a shape depending on spacing and row numbers, then check against 3D view to see how many rows you have. This is not easily edited as ‘3 rows based on a line’ would be. It is arranged as a grid rather than following a path, so that anything but a straight hedge is particularly challenging. Even on a small, simple scale, you can see in the attached screenshots that the calculated numbers are coming out at about 10% different for each of these workarounds. Thanks, Amanda

Many thanks for a quick reply, Jim!

Suggestions for things that would improve usability of plant database; 1. I don't seem to be able to add custom fields, that will appear in the auto-generated worksheet export e.g. I would like to add 'code', 'pot size', 'specification', 'plants per m²', 'pruning requirements', 'pests', 'diseases', maybe others... to input our usual spec for certain plants. I appreciate some of these may vary between projects, but to have an automatic starting point that could be edited would be useful. 2. I would also like to add in additional 'project' fields, it would be useful to know all the projects a plant has been used in, rather than just the latest (or having to use a disorganised string of projects separated by commas!) 3. Terminology should be consistent between field name and search name - e.g. I can rearrange a search by 'Plant Form name' but this seems to relate to 'Category' rather than a field called 'plant form name', which is confusing. 4. 'User notes' field does not appear in plant definition when plant is imported into Vw file, this would be useful information. 5. Exports from the plant database don't keep the same headings, which makes it hard to know what headings to use in order to import data correctly from a spreadsheet, or transfer back and forth with any ease. 6. The Coblands data is relatively useful, but not organised as a database, all the information is in one field. It would be much more genuinely useful if the data was set up as a database under the headings provided. 7. It would be useful to have fields that allow you to specify what months plants are of interest in for each of flowers, leaves, and fruit, to allow planning for succession of interest. The 'Blooms begin' option for flowers begins to address this, but does not go far enough. An overall 'season of most interest' check box could provide a quick overview to check a scheme for balance, as well as detail by month for each element as an option.

Suggestions for things that would improve usability of Landscape Area tool; NB. Some of these already exist for 'Plant Objects'; so hopefully relatively easy to apply the same principles to 'Landscape Areas' for those of us that don't always want to show each plant please! 1. Tag class for landscape areas – seems to be missing from the ‘object info’ palette, the only place to change it is to go into the ‘landscape area settings’. 2. When ‘Landscape Area Settings’ box opens, it would be useful to have it automatically open large enough to show the full plant list – or at least to remember the last size you changed it to? Currently displays only 3 plant species, almost every plant list is longer than that, and you need to see all at once, so end up resizing the window every time. 3. A field in the database for the number of plants per m squared, which translates as default (able to be edited) for use in mixes would be very helpful. Also a fuller explanation as to how planting mixes are calculated in each option would be useful please. 4. Seems to be a bug when editing landscape area tags to a custom tag – when editing a few at once, and trying to change the character displayed between ‘Name’ and ‘Area’, it won’t let me close the dialog, just keeps popping back up; I end up having to quit Vw and reopen