Katarina Ollikainen

@Tom W., nothing is planned for this, but I can check with the engineers how involved it would be.

@Tom W., The important thing is not to double up on individual plants. I keep all my 'smaller' plant styles (perennials, grasses, bulbs, etc.) without 3D. These are what I use for the planting plan (a planting plan is essentially a construction drawing, and the focus should be on the data and geometry, not the illustration). Then, I use my illustration landscape areas for the illustrations and let them do double work by using the components for quantities. However, for trees and large shrubs (or other big structural plants I want to emphasise in 3D), I set up a proper 3D geometry (Laubwerk Proxy) and use them directly as they are, both for the planting plan and illustrations. This way, even if I have 20 different tree styles, I don't weigh down the file with unnecessary resources. I think the most important thing is to get away from the idea that every species needs a different 3D representation - if you work with structure and (green scale) colour in the illustrations, not only will the file be trimmer, but you'll also get a more pleasing render (IMHO) - one of the biggest errors in outdoor renders is to have everything in bloom at the same time - you would hardly ever have this happen in reality, and it can easily make the image look garish. I'll dig out some example files I can share and post them.

I fully agree that 3D plants are the way to go if you want a proper render, and we're working on increasing the libraries for this. Also, remember - if you can't find the specific species you're working with, look for the structure and use what's the closest. This is how the library's plants with IPs are set up as well. If you're worried about file size, creating plant symbols with double IPs is perhaps not the best way to go. I regularly see files where the IP is far bigger than a Laubwerk tree would have been. If your graphics card has difficulties dealing with the geometry, try using the Laubwerk Proxy setting while working and change the global setting when it's time to render (this is also the preferred detail level for IFC export, as a BIM model is mainly about geometry and data, not the look). I'm also not a fan of doubling up by adding separate 3D plant symbols - anything that requires manual editing when an amendment is done has a tendency to getting you into trouble. The one exception to this is illustrations of planting beds. I would never use the actual planting plan for the illustration (and also not maintaining 3D in the plant styles) - it would be far too sparse for my taste. Instead, I have Landscape area styles specifically created for this purpose, which are overstuffed with plants to give a better look. The plant styles have no botanical data and are clearly marked 'Concept', so even if I would make a mistake, it would be very clear in the report - I would never order a 'Concept' plant 😀. I can then also use the landscape area for the compost/topsoil quantities. This also allows me to use fewer 3D plant styles overall, as I'm working with mostly green and structure instead of very specific plant images. We are currently working on the plant tool, and there will come something that will make the geometry-swap easier for plants (I can't say when this is rolled out, though).

@JamesRS, You can specify a slope on the modifier itself, but you can't control the slope of the edge (right now). There are workarounds you can use, though, but they require a bit of manual labour: After creating your modifier, ensure you're viewing the existing site model (not the proposed), use the grade tool and place grades perpendicular to the edge of the modifier, and with the slope you want to give your modifier edge. Make them so long that the end disappears into the site model surface. Use them only for visibility, not to change the site model. In a 3D view, place a 3D loci where the grade object disappears into the site model. Go to top plan view. This will give you a 'dotted line of where a specific grade edge would coincide with the existing surface. Now, draw a grade limit, following these markers. A grade limit will always apply to the existing site model, and hence, you'll create a boundary for the slope from the modifier to the existing site model surface. Return your view to proposed, and you'll have your edge with a specified slope. There are other ways to achieve controlled sloped sides as well, but I've found this to be the most reliable so far, especially if the site model surface is undulating. If you have a flat surface modifier to start with, you can also create a solid with the same shape and taper the sides, then place it aligned with the site modifier and trace around it with a grade limit (last image). If you want to apply something like this to an already modified surface, use a 3D poly in the DTM-Modifier class instead of a grade limit and send it to the surface - it will do the same job as the grade limit, but can be sent to the proposed surface.

Hi @JamesRS, yes, you can use both NURBS and 3D polys as site modifiers - you must just put them in a specific class, Site-DTM-Modifier. You can't create this class by yourself - Vectorworks will do that as soon as you use a site modifier in the file. The same rules apply to these modifiers as for 'normal' site modifiers (which contain 3D polys if you ungroup them) - you must have a grade limit around the area. Otherwise, you'll have unexpected results (see the image - the first one is with a grade limit, the second one without.

@JonKoch, the gates are 3D/hybrid symbols, so if you want to change it to open, you must do this inside the symbol itself. You can change both the 2D and the 3D to whatever you like. Remember the invisible geometry you must place in the gate symbol to control how it connects to the fence line. The ability to have views of both open and closed gates is on our '2.0 list'.

Here is a recording on how to use the fence tool. It's one of the coffee break sessions in Vectorworks University https://university.vectorworks.net/mod/overview/view.php?id=5719

@JonKoch, yes, it is. You can create a 3D symbol and use this as the panel. This is how the panels in the Vectorworks libraries are created.

@Amanda McDermott, I'm looking into why you can't find the command in the Workspace Editor and will come back to you

@aage.langedrag, at the moment, it's not possible to get it to follow the site model surface. I'll bring it up to see what we can do.

@Amanda McDermott, this is a great start on something very useful - often, the problem is not knowing what to ask for, and for landscape in particular, as the AEC component often drives a project. (This also reflects the reason for working in BIM - the BEP would deal with all the information requirements you've listed.) I would recommend always expecting a plan of something not yet existing to be updated along the project. If you do this and set up your project to deal with this, you'll avoid many headaches. Regarding the coordinate issue, the most critical is asking for a geolocated file (not necessarily a georeferenced file, as most DWG files are not georeferenced) so you can work with 'real-world' coordinates. The rest of the problem-solving for using the DWG is then addressed in how you set up your project template and how you import the DWG to your working file. Remember - if you don't have real-world coordinates, then you can't set up your file correctly in relation to the world, and you can't georeference your file either. You must at least have true coordinates of one point in the drawing, plus a rotation angle if the DWG file is drawn with a local grid (starting at the bottom left corner of the building, for example). Otherwise, I always suggest asking for a DWG that contains only the critical information and that omits unnecessary hatches. You don't need to know what a building looks like inside - you only need info on what relates to the outside (of course, there are exceptions). Ask the architect to send both a full detail and a reduced DWG. This is a huge topic and depends on what file format you're exporting to. For example, exporting to IFC works with the x/y coordinates, while for a Revit export, the internal origin is the important point for alignment. If you're interested, I can look at creating a video on this topic - however, it would be after Update 4, as we'll have some significant changes coming up. First of all - I think one of the biggest issues is the confusion that the x/y coordinates in a vwx or DWG file are the same as Northing and Easting. This is not necessarily true - it can be but is not required to - the x/y is an arbitrary grid and can stand for anything the user decides. If you georeference your file and align the User origin to the Northing and Easting, then you can use the numbers on the rulers as coordinates (as long as you're working in true north).

@Amanda McDermott, there is a bug at the moment, which makes the landscape area to always carry the geometry of the plants, even if you don't have them activated in 2D. This is being fixed and I'll let you know when it's done. The landscape area is foremost created to avoid the need for using the plant images in 2D and I assume that's the way you want to use them. However, I also tested the problem in an otherwise empty file and created several areas, with an area of 50 000 m2 (instead of the 5000 you used), and this didn't slow down the file, so I'm wondering if there is something else creating the problem. The use of one plant is exactly how I would recommend doing it, and I assume you haven't added any 3D geometry to this 'mix-plant' with a heavy texture.

@Amanda McDermott, do you need this for 3D or 2D only?

@Adam Jones@Anna Guzman, the bug is found and resolved - the next update (U2) will include the fix.

@Amanda McDermott, @Helen Palmer - Okay, so better plant lines - do you have examples of what you're looking for? It's difficult to know what a 'better-than-dreadful' would look like - I personally like the plant line as it is and have had very good results using it (IMHO). However, I don't use it on the landscape area itself, as you currently get the gaps you're mentioning. Knowing exactly what in the existing plant line/plant cloud you don't like would also be beneficial. We've already started work on the functional improvements of the plant line in connection to the landscape area, but I am interested in knowing more about what you would like the actual lines to look like. I understand that you can draw nicer plant lines by hand - to recreate the hand-drawn look is 'the dream', with its not-so-perfect look and non-repetitiveness. Have you tried the new massplant settings from 2023? If this isn't good enough, what is it you're missing? I've attached a sample below, with the reworked mass planting active. You can replace the symbols with a set of B/W symbols in the Vectorworks library. We can't supply the same plants with several different 'looks' - that would balloon the libraries massively, and most users that prefer B/W have made their own highly specialised plant library anyway. I do understand your desire for simpler plant symbols - we're working on something that will make this much easier - I can't say more now. I agree - the Laubwerk plants are bigger, but the graphics card usually creates most of the problems. Compare the two last images - the first has only three trees (Laubwerk), and the second has over 5500 - the file size difference is not very big. You get a 'starting size' of the plant but not a huge increase for each instance of the plant. However, the size of the image props varies widely as well, so if you're concerned about the file size, this can also be worth checking.