ericjhberg

Member
  • Content count

    260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

65 Excellent

3 Followers

About ericjhberg

  • Rank
    Journeyman

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Landscape Architect
  • Homepage
    http://www.pc-ld.com/
  • Location
    Ventura, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

840 profile views
  1. I was hoping for a fix of this BUG with SP2 of 2018 released today, but unfortunately NO! This is a BIG issue and needs to be addressed ASAP. It dramatically influences the workflow we have streamlined since VW2013! Please FIX!!
  2. Two answers... No, leave them as 3D Polys, but obviously they need to be set to the proper Z values, they just need to be put in the class Site-DTM-Modifier. Also note that these 3D polys may be breaklines, and not necessarily contours. This means that they define variable z values along their path and better define linear or planar elevation gradients Within the Site Model Settings, you can select which design layers the site model uses to look for Site Modifiers, I use this to separate out my site modifiers into different design layers to play with different grading concepts. In VW2018, this option is located in the Site Model Settings>General Tab>Use Site Modifers on: All Layers Visible Layers Only Same Layer as Site Model Custom Set of Layers (Set Layers) The best way to make this functionality work is by also adding a Site Modifier Object > Grade Limit to provide bounds for the 3D polys to do their work. Without it, they will interact with the Existing Site Model Source data very locally. You will notice when using this operation that the result of using 3D Poly data as site modifiers to "propose" atop an existing site model, that the result will not be as clean as when you create a separate site model using the "proposed" 3d poly data as the source data. For this reason, we often use the functionality to determine cut fill, but will create an entirely separate site model for renderings.
  3. I have hoped for something like this for a long time. It turns out that the old way of using site modifiers to create the "proposed" site model was never as clean as using the same 3D polys or modifiers to create a new separate site model. With both an existing condition site model and a separate proposed condition site model, I too have hope for some way to compare them/merge them to get the benefits of cut/fill. I'm not surprised that additional data or substitute data cannot be placed in the Edit Contour mode of 2018 site models...the site model's workflow has never been the most intuitive. The best thing I can propose with this separate 3D poly data is treating it like site modifiers by putting them in the class Site-DTM-Modifier and surrounding them by a Grade Limit Site Modifier, then telling the site model to use them as site modifiers (layer control) and updating/viewing as proposed. This is my old methodology and still works with VW2018...however beware it will negate the use the new edit contour functionality.
  4. I was able to trace this issue back directly to the presence of the =IMAGE function in the worksheet. When present and recalculated, this functionality will now screw up the visibility settings of any plant symbol as described above, but as soon as it is removed, and things are manually updated, normal functionality and visibility control returns. Again, this is completely new to VW2018, probably with the changes to the worksheets? Either way, this is NOT GOOD!
  5. I submitted a bug report...never had this problem before. This brings up another issue with that I have railed on with the =IMAGE function in worksheets...what if I want to show a PLANT with different classes shown in two different viewports...one CD and one PRELIM for example. When the =image function in worksheets was working, even then, there was no way to have the worksheet calculate and produce an image based on two different visibility settings, only the active visibilities. As I have said in other posts, the =image function needs some serious attention. This is just one of many issues with it, the foremost being the poor rasterized image quality generated. It got better in 2017, but still is a poor substitute and often not legible on final production drawings. Ugh...why would something that worked fine before break now...this is the stuff that drives me insane.
  6. Thanks Robert for chiming in. After my testing, this is a BAD bug! I have attached a sample file for you to test on your end. VW2018 Plant Symbol Bug.vwx This will help us determine if this is a Windows based issue since you are operating on Mac. Do these steps: 1. Open file 2. Notice class visibility settings upon open. 2 classes of the symbol are visible, 5 are turned off 3. Open the Planting Schedule worksheet placed on the design layer 4. Recalculate the worksheet 5. Notice the visibility of the Symbol column (=IMAGE function) does not match the class visibility as it always has before 6. Look at the symbol in the design layer. For us, it changed visibility, some classes that were turned off are now visible. But if you look at the class visibility settings, nothing changed. 7. Edit the 2d symbol 8. Select one of the items from a class that should be turned off, notice you can select it but nothing appears in the OIP 9. Exit the symbol, notice everything goes back to normal, except the worksheet 10. Recalculate the worksheet. Same thing happens all over again! Here is another screen capture video of these steps VW2018 Plant Symbol Bug.mp4 As I said above, this one is BAD, it is keeping us from doing anything in 2018 and of course it doesn't come up until we've already started and are ready to produce.
  7. We have a new issue, never encountered prior to VW2018. Currently we are having difficulty with Plant plug-in object visibilities...I've attached 2 screenshot videos (no narration, sorry) that show what we are encountering, but I will do my best to explain. We have (8) different classes we use to control the internal visibilities of our Plant objects. Currently, these classes are not responding to simple on/off/gray controls unless you go into each plant individually, after changing the visibilities, and then exiting the plant. Then and only then do they look correct. To make things worse, this error is compounded by the fact that as soon as one database worksheet plant schedule is recalculated, all of the active visibilities and buggy visibilities revert to a pre-altered state. I know this isn't the most clear description and I hope the screen captures do it more justice. Ultimately we need this fixed ASAP. This is a bad bug that affects our ability to produce any documents. Plant_Symbol_VW2018_Bugs.mp4 VW2018 Plant Bug 2.mp4
  8. Definitely not true with Hardscapes...which of course is the one we use most often. We try to avoid any duplication of similar objects to minimize conflicts during editing. In my opinion, there is nothing worse than trying to remember how many duplicates need to be modified when something changes.
  9. We often use the Create Objects From Shapes... tool to turn regular polys into plug-in objects like hardscapes, landscape areas, etc. Until recently (v2018) this would destroy curvilinear geometry, but now it doesn't. Great work. Now what we need is the ability, somehow, to run a Un-Create Objects from Shapes to go back to the original geometry from the plug-in created. There currently is no way to do this. You can use the Ungroup or Convert to Group commands, but this often results in way too many resulting objects. For example, a very basic hardscape, ungrouped, results in 3-4 identical shapes overlapping, which is impossible to get rid of on large projects. Just a thought.
  10. Agreed. Fence tool needs some upgrades. It's close, but just needs that extra love...apparently the AUS/NZ version is better though, so there's that.
  11. Have you tried unchecking the box in the Export PDF Settings...see below
  12. That's what I thought...wishlist item...allow for the creation of hyperlinks in worksheets, but probably additionally as an option for a record field. That way you could add that data to a database query for different objects and have it populate worksheets. Thanks Jim!
  13. I don't think it is possible, but I thought I would ask anyway. Is there a way to format text as a hyperlink within a worksheet in VW?
  14. There should be a way to automatically connect an irrigation outlet to any nearby pipe. Since we often work on large complex irrigation systems, our workflow has been to draft irrigation lines as polylines first and get them all correct before converting them into pipes. The reason is that once pipes are created, they cannot easily be replicated through offset methods to show multiple pipes or precise locations. Similarly, we will have often already placed all of our irrigation outlets for the design...thus it would be awesome to select an irrigation head, or multiples, and tell them to auto-connect to the nearest irrigation pipe, or the irrigation pipe of your choosing. THis would autodraw the shortest possible lateral connection in between the outlet and the chosen pipe. I have another very specific workflow example where this would be helpful, but I'll save that for later.
  15. So...it turns out that you can select similar plants by species, but not by using the symbol name criteria. Instead, if you use the select similar by object type, it will now select all plants of a similar species. This is a little counterintuitive to me, but it works. I would think that Object Type would return all Plants, and not separate by species and that by Symbol Name would be a more important selection criteria, but at least the functionality is there. Consider this one a partial fix.