Jump to content

jeff prince

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1,211 Spectacular

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Landscape Architect
  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

4,009 profile views
  1. I would really like to expand my team’s capabilities with a talented landscape architecture professional familiar with developing projects in Vectorworks or AutoCAD. We have opportunities for project managers, designers, or technicians who will work on some of the most exciting projects in greater New England. If you live in the Portland area or have an interest in relocating here, this is a very unique opportunity. We are not interested in remote workers or outsourcing companies as our process requires site visits and in-person collaboration. The design process and office culture is fun and supportive. We are five strong and have the desire to add up to two more people if we find the right candidates. We focus on very special projects located on the most breathtaking and exclusive properties I have ever seen. The project mix is primarily private estates, parks and recreation, and resorts. We will occasionally engage in education, camp, and nonprofit projects if they are aligned with our design values. The firm finds itself in the unique position to be highly selective about the projects we choose to take on and establishing timelines that respect the design process. Too good to be true? Read on…. For those interested in relocating… If you love the outdoors as I do, Maine is simply paradise. I moved here from my native Phoenix, AZ and have been enjoying fat biking, hiking, and exploring the sites. I’m looking forward to some snowboarding soon too. Portland has a cool historic vibe, coastal life, incredible craft breweries, and the best seafood. Life is very good, both at the office and at home. I didn’t need to come here for work, but I sure am glad the firm approached me and eventually lured me in. I’ve had the privilege to work and live all around the world during my career, but Maine has proven to be a truly special place for me. For the technically minded… We are a Mac and IPad office. Trace paper, markers, watercolor, and the occasional chipboard model finds it’s way into the mix too. It’s really a studio environment embracing the best of traditional and digital workflows, so there is a bit of freedom as to how things come together initially. I like to leverage Vectorwork BIM and GIS capabilities personally, others do their technical work in 2D CAD. I hope this description is helpful in creating an idea of what we are about and what it might be like to work with us. If you want to learn more, send me a private message here on the forum to get the conversation started. thanks, Jeff
  2. I think you need to consider @shorter’s advice before diving into IFC. Define the design process and deliverables before learning and deploying tools. I have many Revit clients who can architect well, but have no understanding of IFC. They really don’t need to when they operate within the comfortable bubble Revit provides. I investigated IFC to initiate some file exchanges. In the end, the clients would not or could not produce usable outputs in that format, so we either import Revit directly or use a more traditional 2D dwg exchange. But I’m a landscape architect, so that is sufficient for me. As a consultant to architects, I can suggest formats that may be helpful for me, but I ultimately happily accept whatever is easiest for them… they are the client after all. Sadly, for buildings with fairly simple architecture, I can usually mock them up from PDFs faster than Vectorworks can import them. Something to consider as you balance the marketing promises of what Vectorworks “can” do and what is a profitable workflow.
  3. I think it depends on how you define collaborate and what your expectations are. I routinely import Revit bldgs for reference in my site, but I am not fooling with the bldgs themselves. I imagine workflows of interior designers or various engineering disciplines working in Vectorworks with a Revit architect would have particular challenge truly collaborating on a “live” model, but I could be wrong. My workflow is to create a reference file to hold the Revit import and then reference that into my site model. Subsequent updates to the architectural model is then easy to update. My work heading to architects for collab generally stay within the dwg and pdf realm instead of IFC, etc workflows.
  4. Place the site models on different design layers and you can then turn off the one you don’t want to see.
  5. @pivkeNo problem. See attached file (VWX 2021). The Mesh site model was made using your points. The Mesh with Colored Elevation site model was made using the same points, but with the addition of some 'helper' points. The 'helper' points were made by: 1. copying the site model crop generated by your model 2. pasting it into the source data to use as a reference line. 3. Offsetting that reference line 5m to the outside (expanding the study area) 4. copying the perimeter points 5. moving them to fall onto the offset line. 6. regenerating the model to include all these new points 7. replacing the site model crop with the old one copied, thus eliminating display of the surface created by the 'helper' points. I left both models in the same location so you can see the "green dams" along the perimeter of the site. This trick cures the dams along the edge of the site model and the strange behavior while looking at the model in 3D Grid (which I can not explain). I find it to be a good practice to collect or invent points beyond my subject area to cure these issues as I mentioned in my first post. Hope it helps, added points 5m out.vwx
  6. 1st, your English is great. it looks as if you have a few points with a significantly lower value than the others, hence the odd drop seen in the model. I like to add some points beyond my actual site area to get a more desirable shape and then use a poly to crop it. I’m sure if you posted the file someone would take a look at it for you.
  7. The texture is easy, the openings will require modeling to get those nice rounded and non uniform edges.
  8. Vectorworks was a replacement for AutoCAD and Sketchup for me.
  9. I used to get stuff like that. Ask the person doing the tree survey if they can provide you with their point file and associated data dictionary/point format description. Chances are, they collected the information In the field with a hand held data collector or other survey instrument and the CAD file you received is a graphic representation of that data processed in a survey extension of some CAD software, a fairly useless graphic representation of data for your purpose. Hopefully you can get that and if you have input prior to the data being collected, could specify how you want it delivered. If you are stuck with what you have, I’m curious to see if there is a non script/programmatic method of getting your desired result. Otherwise, you may need to make some friends with our script writing community 😉
  10. Ancient workflow = objects had no data and draftsperson manually populated a drawing’s notation with text, multiple occurrences of the same text across multiple sheets led to errors. Old workflow = plug in objects like Spaces, Plants, Doors, etc use built in tagging to describe aspects of the data contained or derived from a plug in object. A little finicky to control, posing challenges to positioning and appearance across different sheets within your document. Less prone to error as data exists in one place, the object, and is reported to many places (tags, schedules, reports). New workflow = turn off a plug in object’s built in tagging and use data tags to report the data contained within the object. All of the advantages to a data based workflow without the graphic and reporting limitations of built in tagging. Neither old or new method impacts BIM or scheduling, they are both valid workflows. Ancient workflow, that should be left to the archeologists. Why are data tags better? It appears as if Vectorworks is on a path to depreciate plug-in objects built in tagging. Proof? See any thread here where a Vectorworks employee suggests the use of data tags over built object tags. For those of us who have developed workflows upon the first shiny object the programmers gifted us, reworks of processes are necessary to switch to the new methods. Best to adopt new processes I suspect, cry once. How is the workflow better, regardless to potential future depreciation of built in tagging? Create a set of building plans where you need the room tags to report different data on different sheets and have adjusted positioning…. Say a floor plan vs RCP vs furnishing plan vs emergency egress plan… the advantages of data tags with redesigned styles to suit each of these scenarios quickly reveals itself. Data edited in object, tags across multiple sheets and style report new data. Need to change the graphic appearance of a project’s tagging in it’s entirety? Editing the styles associated with the data tags cascades thru the entire document. Compare the hunt and peck typist on a typewriter to a person using a word processor using Styles, webpages typed html vs using CSS, or graphic designers using Styles in vector art programs. Or the worst offender of all, the Vectorworks person changes an object’s attributes instead of controlling them with by class behaviors 🙂 There is a logical reason for Vectorworks to move in this direction based on trends in how people interact with computers, design, and data. There isn’t a ‘wrong’ way of doing things, but there are inefficient ones.
  11. Don’t beat around the bush, just call the software ugly and move onto functionality. It’s a pretty common reaction, even amongst longtime users. Click frequency is reduced with familiarity. I have heard people complain about how much clicking AutoCAD requires, which says a lot about the person and provides great laughter.
  12. Do any of your trails touch the edge of the site model? I have seen this seem to cause the texture of the site model to change when my planting areas are coincidental with the edge of the model. Moving the plant area edge to just inside the edge of the model seemed to cure the problem. Not sure if this is an actual cause or coincidence.
  13. It’s hard to say based on the info provided. Assuming the text file is a point file, Open the point file in a text editor to see the format. Configure the vectorworks point file import correctly and you should get their points in. Use the points as source data for the site model. Who knows what’s in the xml, preview in an appropriate program or browser. The DWG might have some Civil 3D objects in it. Depending on the version of your vectorworks and Civil 3D, you may need to call the surveyor and ask the to export from Civil 3D as a dwg with Civil 3D objects converted to geometry only. That usually results in their contours being converted into poly lines set at elevation. You then convert those in Vectorworks to 3D polygons IIRC.
  14. Curious if you have tried the visibly tool in annotation space. I haven’t, and I’m away from my computer to see if it works. Works well from the sheet layer, I use that all the time.
  15. As an (AutoCAD)refugee, sheet layers (paper space)and design layers (model space) make perfect sense to me. I used that workflow in 2D AutoCAD for 20 years. I don’t know anything about Panzercad workflow that you refer to, but sheet layers are perfectly good for both 2D and 3D workflows for me. I like using the annotation space of viewports and keeping my design layers relatively free of text.
  • Create New...