Jump to content

Poot

Member
  • Posts

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Poot

  1. I have experienced similar problems, where editing proposed contours is totally unreliable, and just causes more problems. I have not used VW yet on a huge number of projects, and none of which required a cut/fill analysis so I just edited source contours or existing first sometimes to get clean results. Or, just used various site modifiers rather than try to edit the contours. Not sure what the issue is...
  2. You can do what they show, but it requires creating your own custom 3d plant symbols from 3d geometry. It is not too hard, but would take some time to set up to have several sizes/colours as shown in the video.
  3. Agree 100%. The tool is close, but still very awkward to use practically without a ton of point by point editing for correct 3d, or with inconsistencies in how segments are joined (or not joined as often is the case...) and placed as walls slope and step downwards (eg. flights of stairs). Easy to complain, but am hoping this tool gets a bit more polish as along with the expected developments of a curb tool, this will be that much closer to having most of the fundamentals covered in a good way.
  4. Very nice! It does seem like multiple/overlapping viewports is the best way to get more nuanced effects and visual control. Thanks for the good tips!
  5. Nice! Would there be any way to have the site model white below grade?
  6. Hi Everyone, I am just wondering if there is some secret trick I am missing to create sections like the one below, without having to trace a white polygon in the sheet layer? Most often when drawing large/non-detail principle sections it is not necessary to show the construction below-grade. I understand how to control this with layers and classes within landscape areas, but there is always extra geometry of various thickness that I remains. Using just the site model line means seeing the site model in the background if it is extended. Drawing a polygon overtop is not overly complicated of a workaround, but just thought I would ask 🙂
  7. ah right, probably a bug with the update. Seems to happen especially before any service pack fixes. Maybe @Tony Kostreski can report the bug? Not sure who is best to refer to 🙂
  8. Have you tried the usual culprits/bugs of having the site model on, or being in 3d view while trying to adjust this?
  9. I haven't done much exporting from VW back into AutoCAD, other than 3d contours taken from site models and simple geometry, which is pretty straightforward. Other than 3d elements (furniture, etc) which you would not want to export to someone working in 2d, it should be straightforward. Exports, from any discipline, should always be true north to avoid problems. You can export with an internal project origin, which works without problems, but even when working with an agreed origin point and rotation angle this opens the doors to problems with certain programs. I always use a test file export at the start of projects, with the building footprint from the architects and simple landscape geometry to check with other disciplines if they align properly with their drawings. I would suggest doing this to avoid complications, as its very easy to do, and can clarify any issues very early on.
  10. Yes, I've used this second method, but it would be nice to have some control over the number of faces/simplification level. I've been unable to do so yet, either from converting a sphere into a mesh and trying to simplify that, or from converting it into a 3d poly.
  11. I've been looking to make similar geometric shapes for bushes/shrubs, but not sure if there are existing symbols to copy from. Can do this with trees to a degree, but I have not figured out how to do this in 2021 to have a faceted sphere like that. Would be nice! I guess to do this you create your 3d shape (e.g. sphere) and convert it into a 3d poly and bring that into the 3d symbol definition for the plants you're working with. Not sure if there's a pre-existing style like this already.
  12. If you cannot get the heights from them, which is actually their responsibility, then I'd probably take the contour option. should give you better results.
  13. Hi Everyone, I have also posted in the Site Design forum, but thought there are others who might be able to help. I'm just coming up to speed with the BIM aspects of VW, and wonder how I would work to add custom properties so that I have exported IFC elements (in this case mostly landscape areas) which follow a set naming structure as seen below. Forgive me if this is a basic ask...but I just haven't done this before. From what I gather, you need to create some custom records which can be used within property sets, but I am a little fuzzy on the best process of doing this so that everything comes together as you see above, in one category. I'll be working through tutorials/youtube, but any help/tips are greatly appreciated!
  14. @MullinRJ, In my best imitation of Denzel Washington (Frank Lucas)... Thank you!! I think that this is useful enough where it would be nice to add in the 'simplify poly' part of the menu, since it is very often you get a lot of small contour 'islands' that bulk up the file.
  15. Hi Everyone, I'm wondering if any of you have added a price entries to IFC exports for landscape areas before? I am basically looking to make landscape areas with only the most basic info like below, as well as some general properties which will come with them that can be exported into IFC, and taken out into Excel in collaboration with other disciplines working within Revit. From what I understand, you have to create a custom record for price, and then attach that record in the data manager. I haven't had the time to test this yet, but was hoping someone here might have done so! Thanks for any tips 🙂
  16. Hi Raymond, and thanks for the quick reply! I was indeed thinking of 3d poly's with more than 3 vertices, often coming in situations where we get terrain models/contours that include many (sometimes hundreds) of very small/short 3d poly's. It's not an absolute crisis, but combining a script that removes them with simplification of the poly's makes large models much easier to work with. Appreciate the time and help 🙂
  17. @Pat Stanford I am wondering how I would modify this script to do the same process of weeding out short 3d polygons? (i.e. from a huge number of 3d contours). Is this possible?
  18. Change your 3d conversion resolution to 'low' and the exported IFC file size will drop.
  19. Hi everyone, I am wondering if there is a feature to add the expansion ratio into cut/fill calculations, for areas where the 'cuts' are blasted out from solid rock, and thus have an expansion ratio greater than 1:1 . In this case, blasting 1m³ of solid granite does not produce 1m³ of blasted rock, but more since that has now been blown to pieces with lots of gaps between them. Civil 3D has this function, but I was hoping there is also some similar feature in vectorworks? Thanks for any tips.
  20. Thanks for the quick response Tamsin! I just installed VW2021 on a new computer and haven't downloaded the updated service packs yet, so hopefully that solves the issue! I also seem to get some mismatches with the stake coordinates being off from their actual location...so hopefully the update solves that as well! Will update the post accordingly 🙂
  21. Hi Everyone, Simple problem here, where I am getting negative values in the stake label, while the xy values are positive (and show positive in the OIP). I have set up the file as georeferenced, and the user origin matches that of the coordinate system but I can't understand why the label is giving negatives. or am I misreading this, and those are just dashes and I should just go about my business (everything is in its right place).
  22. Yes, this would be great!
  23. In addition to using hardscapes and the methods you mentioned, you can also try going straight to using site modifiers (grade objects + contours/pads) to do paths like you are working with. I used both methods here for experimentation, as the road tool (used on right side at top) seems to be the fastest way to to do this, but for most of the path/ramp sections I show above there are flat areas placed at irregular intervals which would be harder to make with regular station intervals, so the road tool might not be best for these. The nice part about the grade objects is the networking. If we can in the future draw curved grade objects directly, that will work even more smoothly than having to use contours.
  24. What @TomW said. Here is a video showing that: Pad with Retaining Edge You basically create the site modifier (pad with retaining edge) from the shape, and once thats done, right click again and send to surface. It should cut into the site as you want. *edit. seems you got to it 🙂
×
×
  • Create New...