Katarina Ollikainen

@Tom W., See the video attached - I don't seem to have the same issue. Hardscape JPO.mp4

@Tom W., Well, that is a bit more complicated. The list browser doesn't support all the choices for the JPO, so we can't move that in there. And moving it out of the list browser is not going to be good for the situations where the object class can affect it. But we think we have a solution for it - we must just test it thoroughly first.

@Tom W., I'll review the help texts and see what we can add.

@Jonk, Here is a quick recording of my recommended workflow. Please let me know if this doesn't cover what you're trying to achieve. Hardscape attributes.mp4

@Amanda McDermott, First - are the DWGs really georeferenced, or are they only created with cartesian coordinates (N/E)? For a file to actually be georeferenced, it must also contain information about its transformation from a round Earth to a flat surface. This is the Coordinate Reference System (CRS), usually an EPSG code. If the file is georeferenced, you'll see information about the CRS in the pane 'GIS' under Advanced settings (in the DWG import dialog). This pane is available only when you have checked the 'This file contains georeferenced geometry'. If you have georeferenced your Vectorworks file and aligned your user origin with the Easting and Northing grid, then you can simply import a DWG on the coordinates, and it will land in the correct place.

@moonahdesignCan you clarify what you mean by 'Existing Tree by Line'? Is this something specific to the Australian version?

@hollister design Studio, @Tom W. is correct - the Hardscape and Landscape area has specific parameters for the instance name - this is why the bottom field in the OIP is disconnected. The Name field must have a fully unique name - no objects in a file can have the same name. The Instance name field allows you to have a name repeated between several objects, e.g., Path network. This was one of the most requested changes for the Landscape area before the Instance name setting. Because of this, you can't have the Instance name field linked to the OIP Name field. Yes, you could allow for a sequential number to be added, but then you would have an error between the original field and the Name field. And to have two different 'Instance Names' for the same object wouldn't be very healthy. I do understand that this causes a slight discrepancy between plug-in objects, but it was implemented at the request of users - previously, you would always get the pesky sequence number after the instance name, which then prevented you from sorting on this.

@Rebecca R, Yes, the plant catalog is not included in the improvements. If you want extra fields there, you must still set up all that manually, and they must still align with the xml for the More Data, otherwise, they have no place to be added to the plants. I'll look into the filter issue and see if we can make some improvements there.

@Rebecca RWhat version are you on? There was a bug that prevented the UK-specific fields from functioning correctly, but this should now be fixed. Also, the Plant Style Manager has not affected the plant so you can create new parameters - you must still adhere to the precreated ones. We're looking at a solution to allow user-created extra fields, but that work belongs in the plant object, not the PSM. Yes, the PSM becomes a bit slow if you have too many plants in a file, but there shouldn't be a problem with a standard project with 100+ styles. Please let me know if you are on the latest update and have issues with seeing all the UK PDT fields in More Data.

@AFarrell97, I happened to see this thread and please ignore if this comment is unhelpful. You say you use the circles for existing trees - have you tried using the Existing tree tool? With it, you can import a tree survey in spreadsheet form and the graphics are created automatically after your data. You can also have irregular canopies.

@TeeMukiThis is on our radar and will be addressed.

Hi, you can use the stake with a data tag (v 2026) - that way, you can add whatever text you want to the data tag and use the stake to retrieve the elevation.

@Tom W. We're looking into this and will come back.

The idea is to both visually show depth differences for the cut and fill and also give you access to the volumes.

@yasin2ray, I fully agree - a 2D view of c&f is required. We're working on this, together with improvements in how the areas are displayed, and also how to retrieve more volume and area information from the map.