Jeff Prince

Well, I suppose if you mean all of your existing contours have the same elevation of -5800, then I suppose your are correct 🙂 See this video for an explanation of why your model is misbehaving... flat as a pancake-lr.mp4 You are missing grade limits in that image where your contours look like vertical sided pits. Site modeling is only as good as the data you feed it. It's easy to get lost in all of this, happens to the best of us. Break it down into simple steps and check your work if things go wrong, usually the issue will be evident.

You can't get it to work because your existing contours aren't at the correct elevation and you didn't have a grade limit modifier....It really has nothing to do with the method used to add the proposed contours. I don't recall hearing anyone at Vectorworks claiming anything is superior, they seems to be a bit agnostic on methodology. Can you point out where you heard that? I've been beating the drum for years that people should use points instead of contours. Why, because contours are imaginary and points are real. You can make your own imaginary contours from real points. Your model will be more accurate and operate faster as a result.

You can employ a trick here to avoid the refreshing of geoimages... Set up a geoimage which matches the rectangular extents of your site model. Ungroup it. Build a texture using this image and use the X dimension of the rectangular extents for the texture size. Apply that to the site model using the texture tab in the OIP. This will prevent geoimage refreshes and other crazy behavior. This method also provides a pathway which allows you to edit the geoimage to improve the quality in a photo editor.

#1 - You don't need to use existing contours for your existing conditions when you have been supplied points. Just grab the points and make and existing site model from them. Next, draw a grade limit around your proposed contours to define the extents you will allow Vectorworks to resolve the grade. Add your 3D Polys representing your proposed contours to the Site-DTM-Modifier class. Set your model to Display proposed in 3D and 2D. Update the site model. You should then see something like this which features burns and swales fitted to your proposed contours. The file you posted shows something similar at the far right, but your existing contours lost their z elevation. This happened sometime around your example named "PROPOSED SITE (CONTOUR EDITED)". Another reason not to use/generate contours when you have points, you can make mistakes without realizing it. Flip your file up into Front View and you will see what I'm talking about... you contours are suddenly flat. Attached is a fixed version of the file for reference. Site Modelling-fixed.vwx

I've always been partial to globes with a bit of raised relief myself... Just make a Vectorworks sphere. Then, make a texture from an image. The best results use an image made from equirectangular projection. Finally, texture the sphere using spherical mapping. The trick to accurately scaling and placing the texture involves Pi and the length of a 90 degree arc based on your model size. The previous examples here by @Kevin K and @VIRTUALENVIRONS may be salvageable in that regard, I don't know where they got their textures. And yes, I did do it in Vectorworks...

Post the file so we can see what you did here. Likely the source of your issue.

I’m glad I’m not in the software business 🙂

I have to disagree with a lot of this. Not all curved landscapes must be made from arcs with radii, it’s perfectly acceptable to use curves like beziers and such if your contractor knows how to build them. Is the “problem” you are experiencing with importing AutoCAD splines and arcs into Vectorworks due to bad import settings or perhaps poorly drawn AutoCAD? I don’t have these problems with well made AutoCAD files, but I used AutoCAD for 20 years, so I know how it works. What makes “bad” geo inside AutoCAD? Drawing without tangency…not using snaps…Offsetting splines to create parallel edges… as it turns out, a lot of the same bad practices people have in Vectorworks. Understanding geometric construction, especially with complex curves, is a dying skill. It’s easy for people to blame their softwares, it takes experience and craftsmanship to make things… even in the digital world.

That’s a hard position for me to support, especially in the technology space. If I were electing to stay on a previous release in perpetuity, the prudent thing to do is to maintain that vintage of hardware and OS in perpetuity as well. The user has the choice here and if they want fancy new OS features, they should upgrade their other softwares accordingly. I have not upgraded to Sonoma yet because I like my software to work 🙂 I don’t understand why people feel compelled to run the latest of everything and then expect it all to work…. New Release = Beta Tester in the software world.

The easiest way to do things is usually the 2D way... ...with some helper geometry to snap to automatic 3d working planes. You just have to draw on different planes and then turn your 2D work into 3D Polys. Here's a video, easy peasy. eap in the sun.mov

There are several ways to go about this. if you are using sheet layers… You can place a viewport of the plan view above your interior elevation. As long as you have “show other objects…” mode active, you can see and snap to that floor plan while working in the annotation space of your interior elevation viewport. If you prefer to work in the design layers to layout your work, you can make a design layer for interior elevations and place the viewports there. Then, you can work in the design layer to embellish your elevations. You can make viewports of cropped portions of the plan and move/rotate them as required to suit your elevation. Personally, I find this to be the fastest method, as you can move between elevations quickly, option/drag to copy elements between them, and arrange your views much easier. Then, you just make a single viewport to your sheet layer for an arrangement of elevations. Vectorworks performs faster too when there are fewer sheet layer viewports to update.

That's how it works currently. Symbols export as nested blocks. Hardscapes export as blocks composed of a hatch, a hatch polyline boundary, and an object polyline boundary... all of which is classed. You can get rid of the extra polyline boundary by deleting the objects on that class. Of course you need to be organized in Vectorworks in regards to how you use classes for this to be a quick and easy process. You probably want groups and symbols to convert to blocks. The first level of block is named "parametric object..." You can filter a selection set in AutoCAD for blocks named "Parametric object*" to select them all and then explode. Plant export first into containers named "parametric object...", once you explode them to their nested block, it is named after the plant. Most objects follow the same logic. So, exploding that first level container symbol is a one step process for you entire drawing. The next step in AutoCAD is to simply filter for objects the container class(es) for your hardscapes and delete that. You will then be left with an outline and hatch for your hardscapes. It's like a 2 minute process for the largest of drawings, when you have an organized class system in Vectorworks.

must resist switching to 2024.... I just experienced this great update today while coordinating a set of plans with 6 different enlargements used across 24 sheets. Salvage, Hardscape, Planting, and Irrigation. Nicely done Vectorworks! I look forward to doing more with this tool.

His post is nearly 9 years old, perhaps things have improved a little? @htranbos necromanced this thread and had a different concern. I don't know how C4D does things, but Vectorworks has a rudimentary stacking of transparency that actually exports pretty good, see video. What would be nice is to have by object and z-buffer exporting, but I can't fault VWX for not having those given it's purpose and audience. allmixedup.mov

Because Vectorworks made that particular texture and hatch. I guess the person who made it must not have been paying close attention to the details, you see that from time to time in the Vectorworks library. You can make them match perfectly with the right hatch design.