Jump to content

Katarina Ollikainen

Vectorworks, Inc Employee
  • Posts

    316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Katarina Ollikainen

  1. @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.

     

     

    • Like 2
    • Love 1
  2. 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).

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Love 1
  3. @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.

     

     

    Screenshot 2023-11-30 at 21.15.48.png

    Screenshot 2023-11-30 at 21.16.01.png

    Screenshot 2023-11-30 at 21.16.12.png

    Screenshot 2023-11-30 at 21.16.33.png

    Screenshot 2023-11-30 at 21.24.04.png

    • Like 3
    • Love 1
  4. 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.

    Screenshot 2023-11-30 at 20.07.07.png

    • Like 2
  5. @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.

    • Like 1
  6. @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.

    17 hours ago, Helen Palmer said:

    Large drawings covered in lots of very small individual coloured plants (which don't mass properly) are not readable by contractors and do not look good.

    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. 

    17 hours ago, Helen Palmer said:

    And some standard black and white plant images would be helpful

    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.

    On 10/16/2023 at 10:50 AM, Amanda McDermott said:

    We tried out the Laubwerk plants and found they made the files so huge and clunky that we've not bothered with them

    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.

    Screenshot 2023-10-17 at 19.38.40.png

    Screenshot 2023-10-18 at 11.36.30.png

    Screenshot 2023-10-18 at 11.34.55.png

    Screenshot 2023-10-18 at 11.33.42.png

  7. 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.

    Screenshot 2023-10-13 at 18.00.13.png

    • Like 1
  8. @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.

    Screenshot 2023-09-28 at 19.28.40.png

    • Like 4
  9. 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.

    • Like 1
  10. @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.

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...