Jump to content

Tom W.

Member
  • Content Count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tom W.

  1. @TomKen I am in VW2020 + you can wrap the components around window reveals in 2D by entering the number of components you want to wrap in the interior + exterior wall detail settings: But it has no effect on the 3D model: Are you saying it does now in VW2021? The way door/window openings look in 3D + vertical sections (bad) is a fairly massive sore point so it'd be amazing if there'd been any improvements on that front. For example see this thread: @Christiaan it'd be great to see some screenshots of the results you get by your method...
  2. Hi @DDD see: Please vote for it. But in your example you'd probably be as well using a hardscape in which case you can rotate the texture
  3. Tom W.

    Topography

    Thanks @jeff prince + @line-weight for the info on how section lines work this has been a great lesson. On this issue: If you select all three SLs at once the 'reverse direction' command only works on the top one so you have to do them one at a time. But if you make the section lines into a group they can be moved/flipped/rotated as one. The tedious bit is turning the section lines on one at a time beforehand (after you duplicate a stack of VPs) then adjusting the crops one at a time afterwards
  4. Tom W.

    Topography

    Gotcha 👍 Thought you meant mirror tool. I was on right track in my second example: it's the section lines doing the mirroring. Good tip thank you! Very easy/quick/flexible. I agree it's such a good way to learn/discover (the forums)
  5. Some other good texture sites: https://cc0textures.com/categories https://texturehaven.com/textures/ http://www.cadhatch.com/seamless-textures/4588167680 https://www.sketchuptextureclub.com/ https://www.poliigon.com/search?type=texture
  6. Tom W.

    Topography

    Hi @jeff prince maybe i did it wrong but when I mirrored my stack of viewports i got this (on the right): Graphics all wrong and just a mirror image of the same view But when I just duplicated the stack then turned on the section lines for all three VPs in the stack then rotated those three section lines through 90 on the design layer I got this: Which is correct - view-wise + graphically. And the same as you say: an easy way once you've set up the first stack of VPs to create new views with the same visuals v quickly
  7. Tom W.

    Topography

    Thanks @jeff prince I did look into that before but didn't get anywhere with it but you've prompted me to revisit it + I can see what was confusing me: it was only the first VP that was showing a section line present but what I needed to do was add section lines for the other VPs in their respective 'section line instances' dialog boxes to make them show up on the design layer as well, then like you say I could if needed draw a guide + move each of them individually into their new positions. Thanks for the nudge in the right direction 👍
  8. Tom W.

    Topography

    Thanks @line-weight I'd not even considered the section line. The first section VP I made (today) was from a clip cube then all the others were copies of that first one. So on the sheet layer I've got 9 VPs in total but only one section line on the design layer. If I move that section line it affects the original VP but not the remaining 8. So I guess on that basis, if I had a stack of 3 VPs with the section line associated with the first one, if I moved the section line I'd have to discard the second two VPs + re-duplicate them from the original VP... It's already a bit confusing having 9 VPs on a sheet but only 4 'drawings' as such visible + not being sure how many VPs i've got stacked in each drawing; and also in the stacks, knowing which VPs relate to which 'layer' of the 'drawing' (top, middle, bottom). But I suppose naming them properly would have been a good start there...
  9. Tom W.

    Topography

    I will try this out just to see what happens. And whether the back-fill volumes are factored into the cut + fill calcs. But the main thing I've learnt from all this is the fact that if your site is relatively level to begin with + your GF level is above ground level you can just place the model in the DTM without any site modifiers + it will look fine: And your sections will look fine too just by stacking VPs - no hand-annotating needed: None of the projects I've got coming up require much in the way of excavation so good to know I don't need to get too bogged down in complex site modifiers
  10. Tom W.

    Topography

    Cool that's really good to know! Yes the graphic attributes in the site model settings just control the exterior of the DTM - so like Jeff says, the stuff beyond the cut plane in his section - but I did wonder what role the attributes palette played in the scheme of things. So now I have a third VP where the DTM look is controlled by the attributes palette rather than by class: I've had mixed results with site modifiers too hence my interest in not needing to use them other than for general grading of the site. I understand in principle what Jeff means about excavating a void from the DTM for the building overall to sit in using a pad with retaining edge, then replacing the unnecessarily-removed material (in my example) over the outside of the strip foundations + the area under the sub base but not sure how it would work in practise unless you could create an extrude then use 'Add Solids' to add that volume to the site model: would need to try it, but based on discussion in that thread of yours sounds like it would convert the DTM into a solid addition. Like I say I think I'm happy not going down this route + forgoing C+F calcs + just getting the look I want in the VPs. I'm not building on mountain sides or anything this is norfolk after all... That sounds correct to me. Thanks. It's been really useful to discuss all this I've learnt a lot + feel like I have a relatively clear idea of the best way to proceed now
  11. Tom W.

    Topography

    Thanks @line-weight for link to that thread I hadn't seen that - hmm lots to think about... So in this image is the green the site model?: How did you get it to show with a solid fill - by overlaying a 2nd VP or some other method? Why is the site model clipped around the foundation that way? Have you used site modifiers here? In my screenshot below the top VP has the site model drawn in manually in the annotations as a polygon + in the bottom one I used two VPs as @jeff prince suggested which gives me identical results with no hand drawing so I'm pretty happy with that When you say: do you mean if I wanted to show the back wall of the space above then I'd also see the foundations of that wall running between the two cut foundations when I wouldn't want them to? I suppose that could that be avoided by using with a 3rd VP overlay for the beyond cut plane objects with the offending foundations cropped out...? I was quite excited when I first saw what you could do with overlaying VPs as it seemed to me to offer lots of ease + flexibility for presenting lots of different options (like really cool cutaway 3D views through buildings) but I agree it would definitely be preferable if the site model 'understood' the 3D geometry of the building + was automatically subtracted by it + the section VPs showed up correctly without any faffing around stacking duplicates on top of each other. In the absence of this though have you done what @jeff prince describes?: This sounds quite fiddly + I'm wondering, if cut + fill calcs aren't required, how necessary it is to go down this route + why not instead just place the building in the site model at the correct elevation without using any modifiers? Sure, use site modifiers to do some general grading if necessary but your screen shots demonstrate how well it all looks in 3D in open GL without any site modifiers + in the section VPs you can easily use the overlayed VPs as above to superimpose the building over the site to get them looking right so why go to the trouble of trying to cut the site model around all the foundations? This has been really helpful to get my head around something that i've not really seen discussed in much detail in all the videos thank you
  12. This is really good to hear thank you
  13. Sound advice 👍 The fact is I'm really enjoying learning/using 3D so even if some of the detail isn't strictly necessary I'm having a ton of fun doing it! Besides, the way I drew in 2D for 12 years I realise now was so stupid (in terms of gaining the benefit of all that VW offered, even just for 2D workflow) that I'm finding I'm not spending any longer than I used to on (now) 3d models but obviously getting a hell of a lot more back in return. I'm heavily involved on the construction side (managing the works on site) so always want to see exactly how the building's going to be put together at design stage + often not going through a planning process so can get straight into the nitty gritty from the off. Whereas I know most architects it's a gradual process where detail gets added incrementally + often never gets taken to fully detailed construction drawings + are instead more indicative (if contractor design portions)
  14. The issue of how far you go with the model + how much you detail directly in VP annotations is really interesting to a newcomer like me + I'm always keen to hear what other people do. My background is in construction/fabrication + doing v detailed 2D drawings so moving into 3D my natural inclination is to want to try + replicate that in the model, but I know from what I've seen/heard that this isn't necessarily the best approach: only model what is absolutely necessary. But easy to get carried away...
  15. Tom W.

    Topography

    That's brilliant @jeff prince thanks so much for taking the time to talk me through it. I was aware of overlaying VPs but hadn't occurred to me as a solution here - a far better way to do it. Muchas gracias 👍
  16. Tom W.

    Topography

    Thanks for this Jeff. I am familiar with site modifiers but I didn't realise that the retaining wall site modifier would work on what I showed in my screenshot i.e. one wall for the strip foundations then a second narrower wall sat on top = presumably two retaining wall modifiers. But I'm happy to give it a go. In your file I can see a pad modifier used to form a plateau for the building + a grade limits around it but the slab actually bisects the surface of the site model rather than 'excavating' it. But I'm guessing you could have used a pad with a retaining edge to cut out the volume for the slab before placing it. On the graphics issue, I can see what you've done: you're still using 'merge cross sections' but you've checked 'create structural + nonstructural groups' which has allowed you to give the walls + slab one set of attributes + the site model another. What I was asking is whether it's possible to select 'separate cross sections' so you can see the individual wall + slab components but still somehow give the site model a fill. I suspect the answer is just to do it by hand in the VP annotations which I what I've done here: I traced over the site model to get the line of the ground level then made it into a polygon with a fill, then turned off the site model to reveal the obscured building components + now it's looking the way I wanted it. So maybe I've answered my own question: to not worry too much about site modifiers in terms of what's happening under the ground - the building will look fine in 3D just placed in the site model without them - then manually annotate the section viewports to get the detailed drawings looking right. Only issue then is you're not getting the benefit of cut + fill calcs... What if you're digging a basement? Anyway it's good to be able to discuss it - I'm just interested to know what other people do. Thanks
  17. Tom W.

    Topography

    Hi @jeff prince I was just wondering: in your example file where you show the cross-hatching on the cut plane of the site model, this would apply to all the objects on the cut plane wouldn't it? Is there another way to assign a fill to a site model section? Is there a way to place a building constructed as per screenshots below in a site model + have it represented correctly in sections? I've just placed the building in the site models without using any site modifiers. I wouldn't have a clue how to use site modifiers to 'excavate' the site first to get anything other than a rectilinear shape with vertical sides. I'm not sure what other people do. Any advice welcome many thanks
  18. I can't open your file - is it VW2021? I've not upgraded yet. But it sounds like what you're doing should work. Are your hardscapes aligning to other things ok - massing models, other hardscapes, etc? Does clicking 'Realign' in OIP have any effect? Are your 'align with objects on [layer]' settings correct in OIP? Here's my file: TW roadway.vwx
  19. I've never used a roadway before but tried it + it worked fine. Obvious question but did you use an Aligned Slab Hardscape? You also need to set the datum on your slab to top of component. The texture going diagonally on the hardscape you can remedy in the O.I.P. render tab. For 'part' select 'main slab texture' then try different map type settings below until you get it looking the way it's meant to.
  20. However be aware that having done this + you need to reshape the slab the EAP element won't reshape with it, you have to reshape the extrude path as a separate operation...
  21. Or if you want a raft foundation rather than strip foundations you can create the toe detail as an extrude along path then use 'Add 3D Object to Slab' command to incorporate it into your slab
  22. Enter VP annotations to move/edit the drawing label. Double click or right click on the VP + select 'Edit Annotations'
  23. Yep https://university.vectorworks.net/mod/page/view.php?id=697 Is service select content though I realise It is the middle one of three webinars
  24. Just watched v good video from VW UK on university site: SITE MODELLING: SITE MODIFIERS Think it's a recent addition. Wish they'd make searching for content a bit easier + there be a better way of learning about new content but that's a whole other matter... At any rate it explained things in more detail + with more clarity than any other material I've seen on the subject so glad they posted it + glad to have found it
  25. Brilliant! Have you noted that one for future reference @Pat Stanford ? 😁

 

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...