bozho

Hi AnneSea, I noticed that the Clip Cube feature is turned on in the file and the created site model falls outside the specified Clip Cube (here can be found more information about the Clip Cube feature: https://app-help.vectorworks.net/2019/eng/VW2019_Guide/Views/Viewing_a_Model_with_the_Clip_Cube.htm ). The site model (and any other 3D geometry covert by the Clip Cube) shows after turning off the Clip Cube ('View' menu > 'Clip Cube').

Right. It is an issue in SP2 only and has been caused by another change. More specifically, the issue is that when a Plant Style's property is set 'by instance' then the Plant being created takes its value from the Plant Tool Preferences (Plant defaults) rather than the style. It is actually a problematic behavior (internal ref VB-184074) except for the Tag properties. (for more details: https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/90306-plant-tool-seriously-messed-up-in-vw2022-please-fix/) This issue is already fixed for the upcoming SP2.1 update targeted for mid-January.

@hollister design Studio @Nico_be Thank you for reporting this issue. The fix of it will be included in the SP3 release.

The graphic attributes are actually not styled and they can be changed from the Attributes pane.

Thanks for reporting it! It is actually an issue with the Style popup widget, filed as a bug VB-176033 (Styles: Creating a new Plug-in Style from unstyled instance sets Class Widget disabled) and hopefully will be fixed in VW 2021 service pack 3.

Hi Journeyman, We have tried reproducing what you describe but without success. Probably it is a file specific issue. If it is possible, could you please send us a file where we could see this behavior? Thanks!

Thanks for filing this request! Sounds like a good idea, and not just for the site model. Here are some more details about it: The Site model is TIN-based which means that we currently model only the terrain surface. What the "3D Mesh" with "skirt" option does is to create a mesh which encloses a volume but at the end it is still a mesh and that is why when using Clip Cube or Clop Cube Viewport, it appears hollow (same is the behavior when Clip Cube works on any meshes which enclose volumes - to see it just ungroup the site model from the test file). It seems that in order to change this behavior we need changes in the Clip Cube functionality so it interprets enclosed meshes as "solids"?

Hi Joe, The edits made inside the edit contour contexts (either existing or proposed) have lower priority than the edits specified by the site modifiers. In other words, if there are any site modifiers over the model which overlap the edited contours, they (the surface modifications they imply) will override all the contour edits they cover. Here is what the help says: "Do not edit the portion of a contour that is within the bounds of a site modifier. The changes would be undone when exiting the editing mode, because the site modifier’s effects on the site model take precedence over the contour edits." http://app-help.vectorworks.net/2019/eng/index.htm#t=VW2019_Guide%2FSiteModel1%2FEditing_Site_Model_Contours.htm&rhsearch=proposed contours&rhhlterm=proposed contours&rhsyns= However, what I see in the image is: despite the fact that all the contour edits you do are inside grade limits, they are not overridden and what's more - the surface effects (hence, the visual contours effects) are strange. Note that a grade limit takes effect only if it contains at least one geometry modifier (pad, pad with retaining edge, etc.). From what I see, there is a pad inside the grade limit in your case, so the result you get is not what is expected and this sounds like a bug. Would be great if you could provide a test file with such bad contour edits! Thanks

Hi TIA, Sounds like a bug. Could be either a rendering issue or something else... Could you please add a bug about it and/or provide the problematic file? Thanks! Bobi

When there are two or more nested Grade Limits, all of them take effect. But note that if there are two or more intersecting (partially overlapping) Grade Limits, they will be perceived as a single Grade Limit when applying the modification. According to the concept the existing model presents the untreated site surface before modifications. However, one may want to have a modified existing surface so it is possible to have modifiers that work on the existing model. Note that when a modifier is set to modify the existing, it will modify the proposed as well. So if there is a Grade Limit set to existing, it will also affect the proposed model. Currently the contour edits are intended to work only outside the modifiers (such as a Grade Limit). Hopefully, the next 2019 version will allow editing the contour parts that fall within a Grade Limit. In other words, the modifiers (being external definitions of how to modify the TIN) will override the contour edits. A Grade Limit alone doesn't affect/change the TIN geometry but it still introduces new point and segments in the TIN which can be useful in some cases. So if first a contour is edited and after that a Grade Limit is created over it, it won't override the contour edit. However, if inside this Grade Limit are created one or more Pads (no matter whether they are created over the edited contour or not), the contour edit will be overridden. The reason is that when there is a Grade Limit around a Pad, the TIN area between them will be interpolated/smoothed (to get a smooth transition between the pad modification and the rest of the TIN, where the extent of the smooth transition is specified by the Grade Limit).

Right, it's my fault - sorry for this! The "Recreate from Source Data" menu item will be available in SP1.

There is a context menu item Recreate from Source Data, right click on the model and choose it. An alert appears saying that any edits made to contours will be lost and if you accept, it enters edit mode showing the source data where they can be edited.