Katarina Ollikainen

@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.

@Adam Jones - there seems to be a bug with the display of cut and fill volumes - the calculation is done but not visible. I'll report a bug on it so we can get it fixed. Thank you for noticing it.

Hi @ColleysGarden, do you have any suggestions on what you would like to see? The content available right now is what our users have asked for, but if you have specific requirements, please send them to me. We're constantly updating our libraries and the content team is very happy to get concrete suggestions on what to include. The one thing difficult to address as a texture is if you want the zig-zag line for the sub-base which is standard in the UK. However, this is easily done with a line type. Let me know if you want some directions. We have a plant library (2D) with 1400 plants, specifically made for the UK climate (see image). We're also working on extending the 3D library from Laubwerk to include more species. Are you looking for 2D species-specific data or 3D illustrations? There are a lot of changes coming to the plant tool but they're quite deep-reaching, so will require a lot of development before they're ready to be released - can't say more at the moment, but rest assured that this is a high priority.

@JussiV, I'm happy to say that we're actively working on further development of the contour labels - however, I can't say exactly when it will be rolled out. We must test it thoroughly first so we don't introduce new problems with it. We do read all wishes placed in the wish section on the forum, and all comments on the Public Roadmap (which is the best place to make your voice heard). Unfortunately, we can't address everything at the same time - there are always multiple things that must be taken into consideration, and for 2023 we've worked on huge improvements to the geometry of the site model - we decided to prioritise the new stitched surface with the new site modifier behaviours even if that meant we couldn't get the label fix into the same version. For the moment I would suggest selecting the site model, and then, using the reshape tool, remove all labels (use any of the Marquee modes). Then again using the reshape tool, add labels where you want them. I wouldn't do this until I'm done with the modifying of the site, though - when the site model is updated, you're back to loads of labels again. @Jeff Prince, I can't say if you've been moderated, but I have had issues with posts disappearing lately as well - the other day I spent almost an hour responding to a complicated question, only to have it disappear...

Hi @E-JAMS, do you have to ungroup the plants to make the changes? You can use the reshape tool to make changes, but I might be missing what you're trying to do. The data tag is definitely the way to go. However, if you ungroup the plants you'll lose the tag.

@Laura Stone, I don't see the problem - I can duplicate a style and change the ID. Do you have the Latin (botanical) name or the style name the same as the original?

@Amanda McDermott, unfortunately, that's not possible. The Landscape area cannot do this (yet) - it can only have vertical sides. I assume you're working on something like a rain garden and need a thicker volume at the centre? I can only suggest creating the landscape area and duplicating it to a separate layer, but in the same position. Ungroup the first LA and remove all but the component you want rounded. Use the fillet or chamfer tool to round off the component edges. Go to the second LA, remove the bottom component, return it to the same layer as your rounded component. You now have a LA of the top layer and an extra volume of material at the bottom - it will still have the material the component had and you can get the volume of it in a report. However, It won't drape and cut the site model as a bona fides landscape area would do.

Ok, I think I see your problem: you won't have any snap points for the posts when using panels, as the panels drive the spacing of the posts (the post mode for the reshape tool is nonresponsive when using panels. It's not possible to grey out the post mode button, so it's still there but won't do anything). You can't add or remove panels, but you can scoot them along the fence line less than the width of a panel if you choose the panel mode in the reshape tool. That way, if you have an 'uneven' length of fenceline, you can decide if all the excess should be in one end or if it should be divided up into both ends. However, if you just want to swap the end, then the flip checkbox is the way to go.

@Laura Stone, post a file with the fence, and I'll take a look. It is a quite involved tool, so it might just be a setting somewhere that needs to be tweeked

@Laura Stone, glad to hear that you like the new fence tool. To change what end the 'overflow panel' should be at, simply use the reshape tool's Elevation/Edit mode. This allows you to work on a whole section of the fence in one go - this works in both 2D and 3D and can be a very powerful way to get an overview of a fence section. Under the preview, there is a checkbox for flipping the run (see the recording). If it's a raked fence, you can do the same with the post placing. Remember, if you've placed the fence on uneven ground, you'll then have to use the gravity mode to return it to the site model surface, or to the 3D object you placed it on. The gate insertion works the same way as for running fences. First, you must have a gate in the style. After that, it's just to insert it with the reshape tool. When you've inserted a gate, the fence section is split, so you can then adjust each side of the gate separately if you want to adjust uneven panels. This will also adjust the fence line to the least number of panels required. Fence Flip and gate.mp4

Hi @Daniel OKane, are your plants grouped? If they are, then you should be able to turn this on either in the tool preferences before you place the plant or in the Object Info Palette when the plants are placed. The plants can't be placed as individual plants. If the plants are individual plants you're trying to combine into a group, first select the plants and right-click. Select 'Change Plant Grouping'. This will create a plant object with several plants in it and you can then add the polygon.

Or, as Tom said, use the Migration Manager

@Amanda McDermott, you can do a batch convert. File > Batch Convert.

@TeeMuki, I've looked at the file you sent over and have no issues with it. That's why I would like to see how it runs on your machine. The plant objects are Plugin objects with a symbol inside - this symbol makes it possible to have loads of trees of the same style without slowing down the file. Instead of creating individual geometry for each instance, it uses the power of symbols. I also looked at your origins and your project is nicely placed, close to the internal origin. I know there are sometimes issues with plants falling down from the site model if you turn off the site model layer, and the engineers are working on this - however, this shouldn't make the file run slow. If this happens, the workaround is to select all the trees and nudge them sideways, and they should be back up on the site model again. Remember, don't put a specified z-value for plants - they automatically adjust to the site model. Regarding georeferencing, no connection should affect the performance between the trees and the georeferencing itself - below is a file with quite a few trees, existing trees and proposed, on a georeferenced site. I have no problems adding, moving or editing the trees. Regarding the BIM trees - the only thing I can think of is (if you're using the UK BIM trees) to go into the 2D geometry and remove the photorealistic image of the crown and only use the sketch part of it. Perhaps your graphics card is struggling with that. It would be good to get to the bottom of this issue. I'm happy to meet up on Zoom and look at your file. Let me know.