Jump to content

nca777

Member
  • Posts

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by nca777

  1. VW just cannot do some of the things I need it to do, or it takes an inordinate amount of time, like drafting a parking lot for example. With command keys in cad I can draft and average commercial parking lot in minutes. VW takes me much longer using buttons and it seems to get the lot into 3D is almost impossible without advanced 3D modeling...then you have to make changes. 

     

    VW has some nice capabilities, but a lot of the tools seem sort of half developed, at least in the BIM world, which makes me question why we aren't just using CAD if modeling is such a pain. I guess it depends on your needs...

  2. On 5/1/2017 at 11:00 AM, rowbear97 said:

    nca777,

    I went through this entire string and perhaps I missed something. Perhaps the issue is with your original approach in importing the "cad file". Do you have the option for the surveyed to send you the TIN instead of his output of contours? I have found if you can get this you will have much more accurate site-model. I would also recommend that you draw you site-model boundary before creating the site model.

     

    Not sure, maybe I could get the tin. Sometimes I find it on a frozen layer in CAD. I'll look into it. thanks

  3. 48 minutes ago, CipesDesign said:

    So keep in mind that the surveys many of are working from to create Site Models are already (sometimes heavily) interpolated; that is, the surveyor walked the site and took a series of readings, not necessarily in any particular or strict grid pattern. Those "points" are then used by the survey software to interpolate the contours. So if you are creating a Site Model from contours, it will end up being double interpolated, so to speak.Three comments: a survey is only as good ad the person doing it; and often I ask for the survey "point file" and use those to create a Site Model ( and to check on the accuracy or frequency of the points); also, in every case (so far) the surveys and Site Models are more than accurate enough for what we do, and I don't usually fret about small (less than 1 ft) oddities. A lot of that will be worked out on site by the builder.

    Makes me a little leery thinking about recreating topo--it's pretty standard in our practice to maintain consistency in referencing the survey from one discipline to another. The surveyor carries their own liability tied to the documents/files they create. A lot of our projects deal with pretty tight code constraints from building height limits to slope, cut and fill limits, etc, etc. Interpolation is not really acceptable for documentation. 6-12" in grade change for a landscape architect can be pretty substantial, whereas a builder might fudge it all together, a good LA will add steps, walls, terraces, grading to create defined spaces. 

  4. 1 minute ago, JimW said:

    I am not highly versed in the site model, but I suspect that the "resolution" may refer to the Minor Contour Interval, which generally should be set as low as the smallest distance between two of the imported contours, if it's higher, it will round off the other contours.

    I am fairly certain the Major Multiplier multiplies the minor interval, but it has been awhile since I worked with it.

     

    Correct. The (minor) contour interval in this case is 1'. The major contour multiplier is set to '5'. FOr every 5 contours the site model generates a graphically heavier contour line. Changing the contour interval arbitraily would not be an option. thanks!

  5. 17 minutes ago, zoomer said:

    Sorry my english ist too bad.

     

    Have you already bin in OIP > Site Model Settings, and applied the same contour line "resolution" as your source data ?

    And it still leaves out lines ?

     

    Another thing is get resulting contour lines at the same hight as the original ones.

    If they contour lines created lay in between the original it will interpolate too much from the resulting 3D mesh and

    they may look quite different in shape.


    Hmmmm...I'm not seeing anything about 'resolution.' The site model uses the original cad topo from the survey, not moving anything , so not sure there either...thanks for the help!

    oip site model scrn.JPG

  6. 1 minute ago, zoomer said:

    I don't think you are loosing ever detail as long as you don't use simplify the 3D Poly Tool.

     

    I think it is just that you set your DTM display option (contour lines here ?)

    to have a larger height distance as your survey lines are.

    You could also set 2D contour appearance to every 5 mm. So it would show even more lines.

    (Not more real information though)

     

    I'm not sure what else I would do. These are 1' contours, set at 1' intervals at real-world elevations per the survey. Final construction documents need to be 1' contours as well. Unfortunately, this has left me using vectorworks for limited site modeling pplications but not quite meeting needs for documentation.

  7. I have topo data (contours) from a cad survey with accurate z elevations. Problem is, when I convert to site model they simplify or bridge and lose a lot of detail and accuracy to the original survey topo. I've searched the forum and founf similar issues, but not sure this was ever resolved ??

     

    Is there a setting I'm missing?

    bcb 1.JPG

    bcb 2.JPG

  8. On 4/4/2017 at 2:55 PM, Jonathan Pickup said:

    An easier way might to start with basic objects ( rectangles, rotated rectangles) and add them together using Add Surface. Then edit the vertices to create the radi you need. Then create your object from the shape. If the object is already created, use the reshape to to edit the vertices. 

     

    Seems the most logical means is drafting as if in CAD, ie 2d geometry,--centerline, offset, radius/fillet, etc then creating objects. In doing so, I'm just finding the draft a little flukey, maybe Im just too accustomed to autocad. It would AWESOME to have a detailed workflow tutorial specific to roads and parking. Current tutorials Ive found across the web are woefully insufficient for real world projects.

     

    Jonathan, the problem in as far as I can tell with the workflow you suggest is getting proper inside and outside turning radii while keeping consistent lane widths. Maybe I need more practice..

  9. We are running into similar issues with the given road tools and find we need to revert back to autocad to draft driveways, roads, parking, especially on commercial/public projects.

     

    we desperately need a better road and grading toolset. I would urge the vw development team to look at autodesk civil 3d for examples.

     

    in the meantime we are getting by with texture beds in combination with pad modifiers and contour modifiers.

     

    as far as i can tell you cannot connect a polyline road to a pad if thats what your parking areas are composed of.

  10. On March 25, 2017 at 4:46 AM, am4nda said:

    Yeah I think really need to recreate the DTM in Vectorworks to perform all the site modifying tools... So far how I do it if I have a model from ArchiCAD, I saved it as .vrml format, extract all the coordinates, save it as .csv format, and then make it as a survey input data in Vectorworks to recreate the site model... Unfortunately yeah the IFC format so far served mostly just as 'reference' in a way..

     

    By the way, is there anyway to export the DTM from Vectorworks to get just the coordinates/survey data?

     

    Sounds familiar. We also work with a very savvy archicad group. Thanks for the tip on your workflow-- interesting.

  11. Just came across an issue with the above method-- when 'editing the path' all other objects/linework disappears when editing inside the 'group' leaving no base linework/objects to reference. In other words, if I have a road meeting another road I need to edit that geometry to meet the road edge. If Im editing the path there is no edge to reference.

  12. Thank You. This is helpful. 

     

    A common workflow for Landscape Architects is to draw roads/paths with line segments tangent to the adjoining arc segments. Typically, in AutoCAD these are drawn from centerlines and offset. It seems one could adapt a traditional CAD workflow (drawing lines, arcs, offsets, etc) then create objects from the composed polys. 

  13. Struggling here with creation of a basic driveway and autocourt. How do you add radii to hardscape objects like a road while maintaining constant width, as in a road or driveway? 

  14. On 1/10/2017 at 0:08 PM, MarcU said:

     

    I agree, this would be really great and intuitive, like in AutoCAD.

     

    As OZZie says/shows in his screencast:

     

    Another very helpful and easyer to realize solution within the existing scale objects tool, maybe as a first step, would be another measuring tool for the new length (see attached screenshot).

    Why? -> often you have just some random object as a reference length and not a dimension. In this case I find it very unhandy if you:

     

    a) first have to measure this reference object outside the dialog,

    b) then write down the measurment somewhere

    c) open the scaling dialog

    d) and then write it in to the dialog manually again. 

     

    What do other people think about this? What do you think, Jim? I requested this also at Computerworks Switzerland. Would be great to have this soon!

     

    Sorry for german dialog - hope it looks similar in the international version.

     

    Here how it might look:

     

    whish for scaling objects tool.png

    Learning quickly here and running up against what seem to be many of the sam requests as other users. Please consider this post a +1 on this request. Ideally scale and rotate tools would take a hint from AutoCAD's "scale reference" and "rotate reference" commands.

     

    Thank You.

  15. 5 hours ago, zoomer said:

    You take the normal selection/drag tool and hover your cursor over a snapping point in 3D.

    Now you can read out the Z height at that position from the coordinate info fields at the

    right bottom of your view window. Unfortunately no copy and paste.

     

    Normally architects set the finish floor of the 1st floor to 0.00 m.

    There should be a hint anywhere near that says "finish floor 0.00 = 367.53 m over sea level"

    So you would just move your DLVP's Z about + 367.53 m.

     

    Same for north direction. Architects rotate site so that the next building direction with their main axis

    is perpendicular to CAD axis, so it is easier to draw. So there is a north direction mark in top plan views

    that shows real north direction.

    And they will orient the site so that XY 0/0 origin meets at the axis crossing where the building grid

    begins. (1/A)

     

    I would do the same in VW in general for best accuracy.

    If world coordinates are needed, at least I would move my user origin in a way that my drawing is

    around the VW internal origin.

    This does not work when you need to work with real georeferencing because of projection issues.

    Your drawing has to be far away from internal origin in that case.

    So you will need to move the architects geometry BACK to world position by moving the DLVP.

     

    I do the same. I use surveiller data when available.

    But my priority is the building, so I always move surveiller data DLVP's to my building/drawing origin :D

     

     

    Got it. I think you answered my question for the most part re: main level FFE. Assuming architects set main level ff to  to start, yes that would make sense to elevate based on main level. I was confused about where the o elevation would be on a dvlp. I'll do some more tinkering, but this helps. thx!

×
×
  • Create New...