Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About JeremyLondonRMLA

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    3D Visualization, Landscape Architecture
  • Location
    New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. JeremyLondonRMLA

    Point size control for Point Clouds

    Hi Andrew. Nice work. Hopefully we see the point size adjustment functionality added to Vectorworks sometime in the near future. Regarding the workflow I described above, the point clouds I've used in the past also had millions of points. I use CloudCompare to identify only the subset of points that are important/relevant to my work, give them descriptive names, and export them to .txt file for import into Vectorworks as stake objects. (They can be displayed concurrently with the original point cloud for reference if required). If I find that I need the coordinates of additional points, I go back to CloudCompare and add to my existing list, or create a new one, and export again.
  2. JeremyLondonRMLA

    Point size control for Point Clouds

    Hi Andrew. No unfortunately not, I'm running Vectorworks 2019 SP3 and there still seems to be no control over the point display size. As a workaround, the CloudCompare software I mentioned in the above post allows you to select points and add their coordinates to a custom spreadsheet, which can then be exported as a .txt file and imported into Vectorworks using the Landmark > Survey Input > Import Survey File command. I hope this is helpful.
  3. At present the Cut and Fill 3D Display option for site models shows areas of cut & fill relative to the zero plane only. See below screenshots of a basic site model with 3D Display set to Proposed Only > 3D mesh, and the same site model with 3D Display set to Cut and Fill (one view from the same angle, and a flatter view to show more clearly what's happening). With 3D Display set to Cut and Fill, the un-modified terrain surface is flattened and cut & fill volume are shown as projections below & above it, while the site modifiers (and any other 3D objects in the scene) are left floating above it at their true heights I realize that this is intentional, as a tool for visualizing the volume of cut & fill. However, I don't find very helpful for visualizing where areas of cut & fill are located in relation to the topography, and other proposed features eg. buildings, roads, trees etc. I'm aware of the 2D Cut Fill Area function located in Site Model Settings > Graphic Properties > Site Analysis, but I think it would also be very useful to have the option of displaying areas of cut & fill in context on the surface of the proposed 3D terrain, see example below. As far as I can tell this display option is not currently an option anywhere in Site Model Settings. I created the below image manually by duplicating the site model, activating 2D Cut Fill Area, converting the site model to a group in Top/Plan view, extracting the red & blue polygons, and converting them to texture bed site modifiers. Currently this process would need to be repeated each time the site model is modified. If this functionality was to be added to to the Vectorworks Site Model, I'd suggest that the Style: selection box (which is currently grayed out when Cut and Fill is selected above), includes two options such as 'Relative' or 'Volume' mode (volume displayed relative to 0), and 'Area' mode (area displayed on terrain surface). At present texture beds and textures applied to the site model are not shown when 3D Display is set to Cut and Fill. The site model reverts to the 3D Triangles colour specified in Site Model Settings, and it could remain this way with the addition of the Area mode described above. If it was also possible to add an option to display cut & fill over the top of textures and texture beds it would be extra useful, preferably with an opacity slider for revealing the texture beds beneath.
  4. Does anyone know if there's a way in Vectorworks to adjust the point display size on imported point clouds, such as LAS files. At present I find that point clouds display well at a distance, see attached image 1, but when I zoom in to inspect closely and snap a 3D locus/stake object to a point to confirm its coordinates, the point cloud becomes very difficult to interpret due to the sparsity of points against the surrounding background, see attached image 2. I've tried adjusting the pen thickness of the point cloud object in the attributes pallette / class settings, and searched in Vectorworks Preferences for any relevant settings, but had no luck so far. I've discovered a very useful open source program called CloudCompare for the inspection of point clouds. This program allows the user to adjust point display size which really helps with interpretation at close range, see attached images 3-5. Note the 'default point size' adjustment buttons in the top left. If similar control over point size display could be added to Vectorworks I believe it would greatly improve the point cloud workflow.
  5. JeremyLondonRMLA

    Site Model 2D Cut & Fill Display Not Working in VW 2018

    Hi Tamsin. 3D Cut and Fill is working fine for me also. I'm referring to the 2D Cut Fill Area option in the Site Analysis Tab of the Site Model Graphic Properties. See attached screenshot from Vectorworks Landmark 2017, showing the expected 2D site model appearance with this option selected. It appears there may currently be a bug preventing this option from being activated in VW 2018.
  6. Hi Team. I've encountered an issue with the Site Model 2D Cut & Fill display in Vectorworks Landmark 2018. When I tick the 2D Cut Fill Area option under Site Model Settings > Graphic Properties > Site Analysis, and exit the settings window by clicking OK, nothing happens. When I open the Site Model Settings window again 2D Cut Fill Area has been automatically un-ticked. In Vectorworks 2017 and previous versions this doesn't occur. Following the above steps adds red & blue cut & fill areas to the Site Model 2D display. Has anyone else encountered this same problem? Regards Jeremy
  7. #1 - The current workflow for editing the Roof Edge Shape of a massing model roof (switching between eave/gable/dutch hip) involves ticking Use Custom Roof from Profile in the OIP, and then selecting Edit Massing Model from the Modify menu, and entering an isolated editing view where the building itself isn't visible. This workflow would be greatly improved if the Roof Edge Shape could be directly edited on the massing model, with the context (ie. building walls) remaining visible, and without having to navigate a separate menu. #2 - A custom roof on a massing model currently remains floating at the height specified when the massing model was first created, and needs to be manually raised / lowered to match any changes in the massing model height. This occurs even if the massing model height is adjusted prior to ticking the Use Custom Roof from Profile box for the first time in the OIP. To improve workflow efficiency the height of a custom roof should be automatically controlled by the height parameter of the massing model it is attached to. If suggestion #1 above was implemented, this problem would also be resolved. #3 - The height parameter in the massing model object currently relates to the height of the walls only. The total height of the building (including the roof) cannot be directly specified, nor is it displayed in the OIP as an automatically generated field. Total building height is unknown, and for any given Height value, it varies depending on Roof Thickness, Roof Slope, & custom roof configuration (see #1 above). In urban design situations, both Architects and Landscape Architects frequently need to work to maximum building heights determined by councils, consent rulings etc. At present, to confirm the total height of a massing model (including the roof) one must switch to front view, manually measure the height of the massing model, and make incremental adjustments to Height, Roof Thickness and Roof Slope to achieve the target building height. My suggestions to remedy the above, and make the Massing Model Object useful for Urban Design applications, would be as follows: 1) At the very least, OIP to display the following information: ‘Floor Height’, ‘Roof Height’ and ‘Total Building Height’, so that manual adjustments to building height can be made far more efficiently than at present, by referring to the OIP. 2) Ideally, add the ability to control the Massing Model geometry with the following parameter combinations: a. Floor Height & Roof Pitch (total height determined automatically) – available at present, but total height not displayed in IOP b. Total Height & Roof Pitch (floor height determined automatically) c. Total Height & Floor Height (roof pitch determined automatically) *Roof thickness remains independent and influences the automatically generated fields, as it presently does in scenario a.
  8. JeremyLondonRMLA

    Send to DTM Surface - Existing vs Proposed

    I've encountered the same problem over the years, and just found a solution. If the Site Model 2D Display is set to Existing Only or Proposed + Existing it seems to confuse the Send to Surface command, causing it to send some object types to the Existing surface, even when the 3D Display is set to Proposed. To resolve the issue, temporarily set the Site Model 2D Display to Proposed Only when sending objects to the surface, and then change it back again if required.


7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114


© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.