Jump to content

Katarina Ollikainen

Vectorworks, Inc Employee
  • Posts

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Katarina Ollikainen

  1. Hi Jeff, There is a very easy workflow for working with the plants as they are and update them as you go along, but there's also a fix to help aligning your plant libraries - there is a little script to run so you can set up your plant styles exactly as you want them. I'm more than happy to meet up on Zoom and go through it - let me know. It would be a shame if you're missing out on a very stabile version, especially on the Landmark side, because of the plant tool. The changes are actually fabulous - you now have a much more stabile way to work with the plants, but the most important part is that they are creating the base for some future improvements. One of the things we're working on is to streamline how you work with the tools, to remove as many inconsistencies as possible and make it more intuitive to start using a new tool. To align the plant style with other styles is an important step in this, but we've been taking care to preserve an efficient use of it by keeping the 'stickiness' of the Tool Preferences for the Appearance settings and the Tag. I also think @bgoff has made a recording on how to use the new settings for the Vectorworks University?
  2. This is definitely towards the top of the list for improvements of the plant styles. However, it's connected to many other parts of how the plants are working and we want to make sure the benefits follow through all the way from data input to output of plans and schedules instead of just fixing one part of the workflow. Constructive input is very important - make sure your voice is heard by going to the roadmap and leave comments on what you think are the most important for us to focus on - https://www.vectorworks.net/en-US/public-roadmap . Everything posted there is being read and looked at and put into context of workflows and the bigger picture.
  3. Hi, there are a few question-marks here, but first of all - are you trying to import the architect's drawing to yours, or yours into their file? I'm only asking as there are different considerations depending of which way the exchange goes. Yes, if you're referencing the architect building into your file, then you can theoretically just manually move the building into the correct place, rotate it and use your coordinate system, but if you're sending them your file, you have to make sure you both are speaking the same language. The problem comes when the architect is setting up their file in Project North (which is understandably the easiest way for them to work). I'm taking it for granted here that the architect file you're working with is setup correctly with the project north and project coordinates, not just 0,0 in the bottom left corner of the building. You're doing it correctly in your end by setting up your file with your project close to the Internal Origin and aligning the User Origin so you get the correct cartesian coordinates in your file - this is perfect if you don't have to consider incoming files. However, to ensure smooth collaboration, you must make sure that everyone collaborating on the project have the files setup with the same Internal Origin. When this is the case, you can import (or reference) your file into the architect file and rotate it around the Internal origin (or the other way around). This will keep the coordinate system correct. Please note that it has to rotate around the Internal Origin, not the User Origin. I would suggest asking them for the Internal Origin's geographical or cartesian coordinates and then make sure you have your file set up with the same IO (this is normally the way it goes, as a project mostly starts with the architect and the landscape has to align to what is already setup). This will give you a solid workflow for whatever you want to do with the files later. I've added a link below to a document on Revit collaboration - it talks a lot about the issue with origins and how to collaborate between landscape and architecture. even if you don't collaborate with a Revit user, there are a lot of very useful directions in it. Let me know how you get along. https://www.vectorworks.net/ebooks/Revit-Interoperability-with-Vectorworks-Landmark-A-Guide
  4. Agree, use an already existing field you don't need and allocate this to native/exotic. (There is a way to add or change the field names, but this is quite involved and it makes you very vulnerable if you're sharing files with another Vectorworks user - if you open the file on a machine not set up with the same field, you'll loose the info). However - this is an often heard request and I would suggest to go in to Vectorworks Roadmap https://www.vectorworks.net/en-US/public-roadmap and leave a comment in the post called 'Plant Data' (under the 'In Development' tab). The more we input we get from users, the better we can design the next versions of the tools.
  5. I've filed a Jira on it and the engineers are looking into it, but I don't have a date for the solution yet. If you have a file with the problem you're happy to share, please post it and I can submit it as well.
  6. Hi Anders, I'm really sorry but I missed your tagging. Can you send me the file you have issues with? I have seen something similar once before and would like to research it a bit more. You can send it directly to my email to be sure I don't miss it again🙄
  7. Hi Amanda, Nice looking planting plan. Are you using the plant tag or the data tag? If it's the data tag and you've added it to the viewport (as I would recommend), then you should be able edit the style itself and change the size, or scale it in the settings if that is set to 'by instance'. (And if you're using the data tag, they wouldn't scale - they would stay the same even if you're changing the scale of the viewport.) However, if you're using the built in plant tag (as I guess you are), then you have to go back to the design layer and change the size there (Text > Size) - you can't do that in the viewport. If you're scaling the viewport, then you're scaling the font as well - they're 'part of the image'.
  8. I know this is a basic suggestion, but have you tried the f key to focus on the project (if nothing happens, sometimes you can go into the right-hand structure list and select one object and then use the f)? If you have a site model, it might be at a higher elevation, and sometimes (depending on how clean your file is) your main model won't be centred at import. Site models imports beautifully into TM - plants are a bit more tricky - if you're using image props, they won't be useful in TM. I normally ignore importing trees until the last step and then replace them with TMs native trees (you can 'batch'-replace), as you then get both the growth-ability, seasons and movement.
  9. Hi, The Plant tool has 'graduated' in 2022 so plants are now 'true styles' - this has changed a few workflows and you've got many new great possibilities with it. You can now use the worksheet to push data back to the plant style itself and hence work more actively with it instead of just using it for a report. This is a huge advantage, for example if you have sent out the plant schedule to a nursery and have received a list of subs or available scheduled sizes. You can then go in and edit the styles via the worksheet instead of having to go in to each individual plant style and change this. This is an important step in keeping the planting plan 'true' to what is being built and something that is often missed in a workflow. You can even change the spread and height of a plant via the worksheet and this will then be adjusted in the drawing. However, this has removed the ability to (via the worksheet) put in info, different per each instance of the style - if you change something belonging to the style, it will 'push' to the style itself for all existing instances in the file - hence the warning. You can see the effect this has if you go in to the style and look in the 'Planting Schedule Comments' field - your number has become a part of the plant style itself in the file. The only difference for your workflow is that you have to respond 'yes' to the pop-up warning. We can discuss this with the developers and see if it's possible to add an opt-out for the warning, so you don't have to do this every time. Theoretically, this would be possible - however, this is such an important change in how the worksheet interacts with the styles, that it might have to be there. I'll keep you updated on what they say. I know change is always a bit cumbersome in the beginning, especially if it inflicts on a preferred, ingrained workflow. I do hope you'll find the changes to the plant styles positive as a whole, even if the numbering of the plant list has changed slightly. I'm also interested in how you're using the worksheet - I can't see any quantities in the list above, so maybe you're using it as a key or legend?
  10. Hi Tara, I've just made a quick test of the example you're describing and I only get 25 trees. Can you share your criteria for the selection, please? Maybe I'm missing something? You can see below what I've been using. I've summarised the items for Latin name and summed the values for count, hence only one line.
  11. Hi Laura, The plant tag has been included in the style after requests from many of our users. It also a part of making the plant styles work more like the other styles in Vectorworks. I understand that this new setup doesn’t suit everyone, and I would wholeheartedly recommend using the data tag instead if you find the new settings incompatible with your workflow. The data tag is super flexible, you can change the look and the content and you have much more control of the placing of the tags. I was very doubtful to the data tag at the beginning, thinking that ‘I already have a tag in the plant tool’, but I had to eat my hat after using it for a while. The biggest advantage is that you can place the tags in the viewport (where all annotations belong) instead of in the design layer. You can also align the tags much easier working with the data tag. I’ll post a link to a short recording of a good workflow a bit later today. If you still have any questions after that, let me know and we can set up a Zoom to go through it.
  12. I've filed a Jira on this so the developers will take a look at what's happening here.
  13. Hi, what version are you working in? If you're before 2022, the issue is probably that you have set the Plant tool preferences to a size other than the style setting. The settings here are 'sticky', so if you've used them for one plant, they'll stay on until you manually change them. I suggest to always place all plants with the settings 'use plant style' for all available fields. If you later have to change some instances, you can then do it via the OIP.
  14. Convert the 3D poly to a subdivision (0 iteration) and then use the 'Edit Subdivision' tool to pull it.
  15. You could use the pad with retaining edge. Set the pad to desired level and then the Landmark > send to surface command, the 'fit the retaining edge' mode. (see screenshot). This will create a nice and even edge at the top, draping the existing site model.
  16. Oh, and this works as the bottom edge modifier is inside the top edge - it wouldn't work the other way 🙂 I made a very quick video of how to do it, see below. And, of course, when you've created it once, save it and use it again and again. Hör av dig om du har några frågor. How to model a tree rootball and pit.mp4
  17. Oh, and this works as the bottom edge modifier is inside the top edge - it wouldn't work the other way 🙂
  18. Hej Lisa, Yes, unfortunately, it's not possible to create non-vertical edges with the landscape area at the moment, but it's definitely on the wish list! At the moment, I resort to modelling. I've modelled some of the most common tree pits and added materials to these, so I can get a report on quantities. If you're calculating C&F, you can then also add site modifiers (3D polygons placed in the Site-DTM-Modifier class) to the edges of the pit. I assume you wouldn't need all the detail in your model, i.e. membranes? You can also add things like pipes going through and get the correct volume by subtracting the volume from the pit (the same way as the rootball)
  19. There is a way to do this but it's a bit involved and everyone opening your file would have to have the same setup, otherwise it won't work (the fields in the plant catalogs and the Plant styles are separate 'entities' so even if you can add anything to the catalog, they'd need a corresponding field in the plant style as well). A better way to do this might be to use one of the existing fields for the specific kind of information that you want to use, even if the 'title' is wrong. (You can change the heading in the worksheet when reporting on the plants or just refer to the field in the data tag, if you're using them). Or, the best would be as Tony suggests, create a record and attach it.
  20. Hi Scott, I don't know if you're still looking into this one. I would suggest that you're using Data Visualisation instead of viewport override. Attached is a screenshot of two landscape areas in three different viewports. The first one is without any DV, in the second one I've asked it to look at the individual names in the Landscape areas and coloured them different grey according to this. In the third one I've done the same thing but asked it to use hatches instead. Of course you can choose anything you want as the parameters, this is just an example. You have a much bigger scope with Data Visualisation - and from 2020 you can use it in design layers as well, not just viewports (I often use it for planting schemes where I want to see (while I'm working) how much of the planting is deciduous and how much is evergreen).
  21. Yes, you can set them up exactly as you want them. They're much more powerful, AND more future-proof as well - if the same tool is used through all the disciplines and for all different geometry, there will be more reason to develop it and fine tune it. Start by using the data tags that comes with Landmark, and when you know exactly what you want, create your own style.
  22. Hi, why don't you use the data tags instead of the built in tags in the plant tool and the landscape area tool? It is much better, you can place the tags in the viewport's annotation and they update if you make changes to the planting plans, just like the built in tags. You wouldn't have an issue with them showing up in the other viewport either.
  23. Hmm, that's strange. Do you have a sample file you can post? I'll have a look
  24. Hi, any CAD program has a 'safe-zone' where you can work. If you're too far away from the internal origin (you should always have this visible so you can see where you are. Turn it on by going to Tools>Origin>Locate internal origin), otherwise the rounding of large numbers will play tricks with your geometry and the overall performance. There are several ways you can achieve this. If your file is NOT Georeferenced: Ensure all layers and classes are visible and selectable, select all (cmd A) and use the 'fit to objects' command to see everything. Then draw a circle around all the geometry (remember - ALL the geometry has to be included, even that tiny rogue text block fifty miles from the main drawing area). If the circle is more than 5km in radius, move your geometry closer to each other. Important - ensure that the centre of the circle is on a whole number (so the origin will end up on a whole x and y) - otherwise you'll never be able to precicely align your model with somebody else's work if you export it. Next step is to go to Tools>Origin>Centre drawing on internal origin. This will do what it says on the box - the drawing will be centred on the internal origin. It will not affect your x and y coordinates. If your file is georeferenced, you have to set up the file correctly with the project origin lining up with the internal origin before you import anything. This is a vital step and should be included in the template setup.
  25. Hi Laura, The plant tool is really indispensable if you're creating plant schedules. The question is what you're going to use the schedule for. Normally when you create a plant schedule, you want to have the quantity of plants in the design and scheduled sizes (for quotes from the nursery, budget etc). If you want to show the distribution rate you can do the following (see image attached): There are several different records for plants - In the record 'Plant Record' you'll find the records 'Quantity' and 'Latin name'. In the record 'Plant' you have the Distribution rate fields for 'Rate' and 'Rate Unit'. This will give you the distribution rates. Create your own worksheet (Tools > Report > Create Report) with only the fields you'd like to use instead of using the pre-made reports. When you have set up the report as you'd like it, save it in your user library or a workgroup library so you don't have to redo it for every project (or you can include it in your template). If you're using landscape areas for the planting (as commonly used for commercial projects), you can use the pre-created report called 'Landscape area - mass planting'. This will give you both the quantities and the distribution rates in the landscape area. You can just go in to the worksheet and remove the fields you don't want and then save it as above. If you find that there are too many fields for data in the Plant Style (under the 'Plant data' tab), then there is the possibility to make a bespoke set of only the information you'd like to have. However, this is a little bit more involved and it also means that you have to be very clear on what to do when you update or move from one computer to another. Everyone working with the Vectorworks file must have the same setup, otherwise it will not work. If this is what you'd like to setup, let me kno w and I'll send you the information.
×
×
  • Create New...