Jump to content

Poot

Member
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Poot

  1. @Lisar Try switching to your site model layer and selecting the site model itself in plan view. The yellow triangles should then show up.
  2. This would be good to have/fix. As @Pat Stanford mentioned, it might be the bug is caused by the naming protocol in the eyedropper where it copies the name which interrupts the process. Its definitely easier to have the eyedropper tool also copy the plants rather than create styles.
  3. I think there is an issue with the plant styles you have created - as the landscape area seems to display the predefined plants just fine. I tried also copying the 2d symbol attributes in style settings, but this did not fix the issue.
  4. Thank you @Tony Kostreski! I had realized that something was happening, since the proposed site model was changing and I couldn't figure out why. Works like a charm now!
  5. I still have this issue....and there doesn't seem to be any geometry issues that I can tell...but maybe someone else has a better idea of the root cause? I've attached a copy of a file with the site model, and the geometry of the areas which can be converted to landscape areas. Maybe someone can see if they get the same results? This is what seems to happen with the contours when I try with just one of the landscape areas: EXISTING PROPOSED I understood that landscape areas should more or less follow the surface of the site model, and not work as major site modifiers as seems to be the case here. Maybe I am doing something wrong along the way? Landscape Area 3D Test.vwx
  6. I have figured out a workaround for this issue: select the plant(s) --> go into the OIP --> edit plant style --> in the visualisation tab under 3D graphics select 'edit current graphics'. Once you are taken into the editing viewport, click the Exit button and the plants should magically pop up to the surface. Suffice to say this only works on a single plant species at a time, but on any number of that same plant in your drawing. This would be a great issue to fix, especially if we have many plant objects that are not going to the surface....
  7. Thanks @zoomer! Both editing the display options in preferences, and the quick menu work!
  8. Using VW2021, and the site model itself displays just fine otherwise....so that part goes fairly smoothly. Just seems like it should be fairly straightforward to apply the landscape areas to the site model (as advertised for VW functionality....). This is just a test file, so its also not very complicated, and there are no other elements I'm working with so was hoping it would go pretty smoothly. Doing planting plans with quantities was what I was hoping to start rolling out across my office - so doing simple landscape areas is pretty key for that since lawn/grass areas are a part of that. Can do it completely 2D of course, but seems like this issue should have been ironed out.
  9. Appreciate the input! That cross is just the centre page mark. I'm just a bit confused as I thought landscape areas shouldn't affect the site model beyond their component features, but maybe something else is going on. In any event, it is weird to get the errors below, while most everything else works perfectly to match the site model.
  10. I just want the landscape areas to fit into the terrain, and the site model is generated from clean contours (see below). I will try elevating the landscape area with a component which sits above the surface a slight amount.
  11. I just tried changing them to align to proposed site model, also with mixed results to the contours of the site. As far as I understand, landscape areas aren't site modifiers, so I'm not sure why they would be altering the contours.... These other areas improved with using the proposed model approach. And unlike applying the LA to existing areas, I also get a new problem with one of the areas not coming up to the surface (updated site model, sent to surface, etc) though others which went back to 0 did send to surface properly.
  12. @Tony Kostreski they are set to align with existing, as I have not altered the site model in any way.
  13. Hi everyone, There have been several issues with Landscape Areas aligning to a site model, but I have not found a post with this specific issue. I can project a texture onto the site model from landscape areas, and the 3d landscape areas align pretty well with the site model for the most part, except for some areas where they just decide to randomly skew their geometry, or pop above the surface. This is a basic test file, with a simple site model and no site modifiers or other elements. Asides from these few quirks, the results are good enough. Any tips would be greatly appreciated!
  14. I was able to get some of the LA and textures to display by changing the site modifier settings on the site model....which creates a number of conflicts which I can't see. Also changed the visibility options from 'show others' to show/snap/modify, and then used 'send to surface' with only partial success....some of the LA went to the surface, and some did not. Have no idea why your LA's are all over the place.... Have a feeling that the visibility settings in use when creating the LA's might be the original cause, and not the site modifier options (since that creates conflicts). If you have the site model turned off, for example, I believe it will cause problems with alignment from that point on.
  15. It seems to be a bug that will be fixed in the next service pack:
  16. Although its not subtitles, you can adjust the playback speed in the options bar at the bottom of the player.
  17. @loretta.at.large Have you tried assigning a material to your landscape area? or perhaps checking the Render tab of the OIP?
  18. Perfect! I was also wondering the same thing, and was trying to fool around with all of the component settings to no avail.
  19. I use arcGIS mostly to produce all sorts of maps, but not in the normal workflow of my company. We usually receive our source data directly from the municipality for a variety of reasons. I have begun looking into how we might source shapefiles in addition to the general exports we recieve in various formats (see below) and if that becomes possible, then we would definitely start incorporating the simple GIS functionality in our workflow -- most likely in the planning/regulation and sketch phases.
  20. I would second the vectorworks university courses. You can select specific chapters in the more advanced courses and site design modules that will help a bit, and search for tutorials on generating reports and the like much easier than via youtube. I'm also learning and it can be frustrating - but I think that getting over the hump for learning the planting tools (which I'm also doing right now), I'm looking forward to the capacity of the tools which are really the best out there in terms of whats geared towards landscape archtiects/designers. Another bonus is that vectorworks staff actually respond to user requests at various levels, both for new features and problem solving. Coming from the AutoDesk world, where landscape architecture is an obscure profession, this is super nice.
  21. Fair points. I also think curved stairs would be a bigger priority than the step fall, and also the railing fixes. In the end its still faster to have the stair tool than not si I can't complain too much ūüôā
  22. Thanks for the input everyone! It is the default outdoor stair option, so its not about enhancing the project but rather doing what is necessary to meet code. The changes are slight but important given small tolerances for drainage fall on stairs in the first place. I can't send drawings without this drainage slope applied, and it means adjusting the annotations made from any stair drawings. This basically means I cant use the stair tool if I need to send out detail drawings on them. Don't always have to, but often enough that it is a pain point. Similarly, with the freestanding handrails, the only automatically generated options basically would never be built (a post on every stair??? or posts set at the edge of a slab/step???) -Poot
  23. Hi Everyone, I'm just learning the ropes with VW, and have started using the stair tool which is great, but somewhat limited. I have two main issues some of you might have experience with: For outdoor stairs in Norway, we usually draw them with a 1cm fall on each tread for drainage (important in cold countries where stairs ice up). Is there a way to incorporate this into the stair tool, or would I have to make a 2d section and extrude that? This means the rise would be 14+1(slope) for each step up, for example. With the stair tool railings options, I can't seem to place the posts with larger distances in the middle of their respective treads (the option for a post on every tread to the left does place them in the middle) Am I missing something, or is the solution to extrude tubes along a path to the right height and move those into place under the railing? Thanks in advance for any tips!
  24. Poot

    IFC display problem

    Importing the IFC file as a reference worked, and seems like a good solution unless you'd need to pick or use any of the IFC elements (not really needed in my workflow). I will fool around with importing the IFC into a blank VW file and importing that (not as a reference) to see if that also works in the case more control over specific elements is needed. Thanks for the tip!
  25. I have tried this, but since I used an elevated slab modifier (to creat a cutout for an existing building in the DTM) the contours placed vertically on top of each other cause problems when remaking a new site model from copied contours.

 

7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114

 

© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...