Jump to content

Tom W.

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

435 Spectacular


About Tom W.

  • Rank
    500 Club

Personal Information

  • Location
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

1,040 profile views
  1. @Steve Riddle can you explain a bit more what you mean: isn't converting a TIN mesh (3D Polys) into a Site Model is a one step process already? What cleaning-up are you having to do?
  2. Not sure if this is of any use but I give my wall styles 'names' in the 'Mark' field of the 'Data' tab in the 'Edit Wall Style' dialog then call on this field in a data tag using this definition:
  3. I agree. You can use the Add Surface command to combine two Hardscapes into a single object so would be good to be able to do the same with Slabs.
  4. @NLGD the points in the survey file will normally be on different layers so you need to isolate the points that relate to the ground levels when you create the site model i.e. deselect points relating the buildings, trees, etc. If the data has been supplied as xyz coordinates in a text file then you need to ask the surveyor to include just the terrain coordinates in the text file i.e. separate the data for you. Yes the 2D drawing gives you something to trace over when it comes to placing objects on the site model. Plant objects will automatically be sent to the surface of the site model. Use the info in the survey drawing to determine the height + spread to make the trees. Other object you need to use the Send to Surface command to place on the surface of the site model or you can manually enter the Z height in the OIP. In short VW will model the terrain only, everything else you need to add/model yourself using the survey drawing/data as a guide. Although having said that I believe you can import tree surveys in .txt format + have VW convert the data directly into Existing Tree objects.
  5. I can also see instances where this would be useful for 'normal' hybrid symbols where you'd want to have the option of displaying two different representations of the same object in Top/Plan. I have a series of hybrid symbols for electrical items that in 3D look like the actual objects (socket outlets, light switches, light fittings, etc) but in Top/Plan are represented by electrical symbols for producing wiring schematics. With your technique I could also include conventional hidden line representations of the objects in the 2D Top component to allow me to display the objects normally for some drawings + as schematic symbols for layout drawings. Cool.
  6. Sorry Jeff I'd seen this graphic before but hadn't fully understood what you'd done. So in the 3D Component of the symbol you basically superimpose multiple image props/3D models on top of each other + separate them by class, only ever displaying one at a time? That's very cool. So as you say, very very easy to have a glow version + non-glow version of the same image prop within the same symbol, + just have a 'glow' class + a 'non-glow' class to choose which version is displayed across the whole file. I like this a lot. So in the same way you could, if it were a tree for example, have winter/autumn/spring versions all within the same symbol + again switch between seasons across the whole file by changing classes? Love it. Thank you for explaining
  7. Thank you @Eric Gilbey, PLA + @jeff prince for the good advice. I went through all the image prop textures + turned off the glow + you’re right Eric, the plants look just as good if not better in day-time! Thanks for the heads-up. Just need to work on my night time rendering now… 🙂 Interesting to know Jeff that having different plant objects on different classes for different contexts is common practise. Could you share some images of the kind of thing you’re talking about? You mean one set of plants for an artistic representation of the scene + another for photorealistic?
  8. That's weird. I’ve had several more today. This one fairly obviously missing something: Dbl-click to edit the Solid Section + it brings the object back: But by chance I noticed there was also a missing Cone object on the top: The only way I could get this object to display was by resizing it. Ironically I preferred the bollard without the cone on top so would have been happy not to have discovered it but bit disconcerting nevertheless...
  9. I have a scene with Plants in that I want to show at night/dusk as well as during the day time: does this mean I need to create duplicates of the plants using duplicate versions of the image prop textures which have had the glow reflectivity reduced/removed? i.e. have day-time plants (with glow) on one layer + night-time versions of the same plants (with no glow) on another layer + switch between the two depending on whether it’s a day or night scene in the viewport? Or are there any other tricks? I saw a post saying to reduce the glow on all the textures to 40% then you can use the same image prop for both night + day... Just be interested to know what other people do before I head off into the unknown… I just wanted to do a viewport or two showing the outside lighting in my model turned on. Thanks
  10. Yes I've had several instances of symbols with geometry missing. I've had to edit the symbol + find the 'hidden' group the objects are in, enter then exit the group to 'wake it up' + display the objects
  11. No problem @Tobias Kern . 'Roof/Slab Modernization' is in the 'Active Research' section of the Public Roadmap rather than 'Scheduled' or 'In Development' so not sure how swiftly we'll see any changes...: https://www.vectorworks.net/en-GB/public-roadmap
  12. Hi @Tobias Kern it was @drelARCH who suggested using Slabs instead of Roof objects so he will be able to answer more detailed questions but in the meantime to add a slope to a Slab you need to: 1. Create a Slab. 2. Select ‘Slab Drainage’ tool + activate ‘Create Drain Mode’ (2nd mode). 3. Click on the two corners of the edge of the Slab that will form the eave of the roof i.e. the edge that the roof will slope upwards from. This will place drains at these corners. 4. Activate ‘Connect Drains Mode’ (3rd mode) + click on the first drain then the second drain to connect them. 5. Activate ‘Edit Mode’ (1st mode) + click on the blue selection handle for the first drain which is closest to the corner of the Slab which will form one end of the ridge of the roof then drag it to that corner. This will have the effect of forming a valley along that edge of the Slab. Repeat for the second drain. 6. Now you can right-click on each valley (each edge of the Slab) + select ‘Edit Valley(s)…’ to open the ‘Valley Settings’ dialog where you can specify the roof pitch, either by % or by elevation. Repeat for the second valley. 7. Edit Slab Drainage Settings + increase 'Maximum Height' value to something above your ridge height to remove error messages. Let me know if that makes sense. If not I can do a movie
  13. No probs I've spent ages going round + round trying to get to grips with Hardscapes so good to be able to test what I think I've understood about their behaviour + see whether I'm miles off or not... Attached is your file after I messed around with the test slab + set it up the way I would have done so see what you think. I took the liberty of changing the slab component fill to something more suited to a section (see the sheet layer) which is why the other slabs look the way they do. hardscape by class_REV.vwx
  14. Hardscapes are great but also really confusing in terms of the over-abundance of settings. I think the way that the 3D representation of a Hardscape is achieved by associating a Slab with the hardscape is unhelpful + unnecessarily complicates things. On the roadmap they are talking about introducing ‘Hardscape styles with components + improved texturing’ which I’d hope would mean ending the link with Slabs + making Hardscapes a completely stand-alone tool. But in the meantime I prefer where possible to use an unstyled Slab to cut down on the number of different settings. The advantage in using a styled Slab is that it makes it easier to transfer the Slab settings to other hardscapes or to the border if they share the same slab settings. But otherwise, I just find it more straightforward if it’s unstyled. By my estimation there are FIVE different ways to assign textures to hardscapes but the way I have arrived at controlling the look of the hardscape is this: - Use the slab component classes to control the 3D look of the hardscape (textures). - Use the slab component classes to control the look of the hardscape in section (pen + fill). - Use the Joint Pattern setting in the ‘Draw 2D’ tab of the ‘Hardscape Object Settings’ dialog to control the Top/Plan look of the hardscape (fill). - Use the Main Area Class in the same tab to control only the visibility of this fill (I just use a default ‘Hardscape-Component-Main Joint’ class across all my hardscapes which allows me to turn off all of their fills in one go if I want to, with the individual fills they use assigned within the Hardscape settings. Otherwise you have to have a load of extra classes for each of the different fills, assuming you have a number of different-looking hardscapes in the file). - Assign the hardscape as a whole to a container class e.g. ‘Hardscape-Main’. When you save the hardscape settings as a red PIO symbol you can assign the hardscape to this class in the Symbol Options dialog. This is just to organise the file + control the visibility of the hardscapes. The attributes you assign in the slab component settings will override any texture or class settings specified in the ‘Draw 3D’ tab of the Hardscape Object Settings. This can be confusing because the ‘Main Texture’ setting is still active (it isn’t greyed-out) but has no effect – it is irrelevant + can be ignored. So think of the 2D representation of the Hardscape + the 3D representation as separate things. The look of the 3D representation is controlled by the slab components (either directly in the slab component settings or – preferably – by class). And the look of the 2D representation is controlled by the ‘Joint Pattern’ parameter in the hardscape settings + the visibility of the 2D fill by the ‘Main Area Class’. Having said this, I still get weird things happening sometimes + have to fiddle around with the settings in the 'Render' tab to 'wake up' the hardscape to get it to display correctly. And in your file for some reason I couldn't get texture mapping to work in order to rotate the timber board texture. Not sure why... @jeff prince is the expert on hardscape idiosyncrasy be good to hear his take on all this Edit: I did get the texture mapping to work eventually


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.

  • Create New...