Jump to content

DDD

Member
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About DDD

  • Rank
    Apprentice

Personal Information

  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @jeff prince Hi Jeff, the design intent doesn't matter that much in this case. I am creating an exaggerated example to show the problem of having crossed pads although they are applied separately to existing & proposed site model. Kind of like re-painting a wall, my goal is to "wipe" the existing irregular grading by creating a pad to the existing model, then to add proposed grading objects on it, and let them take precedence whenever there is a conflict between the existing and proposed. As you can see, where the pads are crossed, the proposed grading objects do not take precedence completely and errors are showing. The goal is to have the two proposed pads (top and bottom) to be flat, and grade back to the "preparation pad" correctly. Please let me know if that makes sense to you, thank you. *I attached another mockup by adding two grade limits for the proposed pads and it looks more like it, but the problem still exists as you can see those irregular points. If we can make the small pad flat then this is what I am trying to achieve.
  2. site model test v2020.vwx@jeff prince Hi please see attached, I didn't have the site model test v2020.vwxexact same file saved but I created another one shows the same problem. Thank you!
  3. @Tom W. @jeff prince Well I should take that back, tested a couple models and the conflicts still impact model. No matter the modifier is set to existing/ proposed.
  4. @jeff prince Thank you Jeff, this is excellent! I was block by the concept of "not having crossed pads" and overlooked the possibility to apply them on existing/proposed sites. @Tom W. You will still get the yellow caveat but it really works, I'll do more tests but it seems promising.
  5. @Tom W. It works with the grade limit, thank you.
  6. @E|FA @Tom W. Hi I tested the grade limit on the model, yes the contour looks better. However the problem still exists, without a grade limit the 3d-poly based model behaves differently : This is the point-based model, I put on a new pad without a grade limit, the contour slopes back to existing surface evenly on each corner This is a 3d poly-based model, I put on the same new pad without a grade limit, and you can notice the contour slopes back to existing surface in a different manner as they are constrained by lines instead of points, also the labeling is much worse that point-based model In my case I can only have one big grade limit defining the property line, but when I am grading smaller objects on the site I am not able to put nested grade limits within the big one. If the model is based on 3d polys it will behave like what I showed above. So I prefer to work with points. But this brings up another question: when I convert 3d polys to 3d points it creates too many vertices. I am aware there is a function to simplify the 3d poly, but the result is confusing: the setting recommends the tolerance to be smaller than the closest horizontal distance between two neighbored contours. the default setting is 0.45" and the result is messed up: I have crossed lines and a couple straight lines are lost I scale down the tolerance and the result is still confusing I attached the file below, any direction is appreciated, thank you. site model(3d points)_v2019.vwx site model(3d poly)_v2019.vwx
  7. @E|FA No I didn’t, I think my point was that model built on points has better result with new site modifiers. But since Tom pointed out his model which was built on polys worked just fine as long as there is a grade limit, I’ll test it and follow up the result, thank you.
  8. @Tom W. I didn’t apply a grade modifier in this case, let me take a stab at it and I’ll follow up, thank you.
  9. @Tom W. Thank you for the info. I post 2 images in my last chat, you can see the difference betwwen models created from 3d polys and 3d points, the point based model has much better response for new site modifiers, so I am wondering if there is anyway I can export the mesh/point instead of 3d polys. I am aware that 3d polys can be converted to 3d locis but when there is a "curved" site modifier/3d poly the amount of 3d loci is huge.
  10. @E|FA Thank you. But there is another reason stops me from using 3d polys to create model: if the site modifier is riding on a 3d contour, it will want to conform to that immediately, this will cause unwanted results. I attached an example for this. First model is created on 3d points, you can see the proposed contour streched evenly and naturally The second model is created by 3d polys, you can see the proposed contour is heavily constrained by those 3d polys.
  11. This may sound uncommon but I figure it could be the most efficient way for me to grade some sites. For instance, I am working with a site sourrunded by existing paving. And I am proposing to have a flat area with a constant slope for drainage somewhere on the site. But after I placed the pad modifier, I can't propose access from the surrounding as those modifiers will come across the red pad and causing errors. My question is: is there any way to merge the site modifier---in this case it is the red pad---- with the model, so I get a clean model with a flat area, also free of modifiers, and I can start to place other modifiers without concerning about modifiers conflicts? I tested exporting model to 3d contours and generate a new model, but this is going to lost details of the existing model, wondering if I can export the model mesh and use it to generate a new one? Thank you.
  12. Hi all, I am having trouble with the aligned hardscape. The goal is to have a smooth aligned hardscape between two slabs, and to have the land conforming to it, the first pic shows the way I want the path to be. Now the hardscape is set as "aligned slab". Since I also want to change the land form, I switch the hardscape to "aligned slab modifier (top)". But the site model ends up showing weird geometry. I attached the file also, I noticed this function tends to generate some unwanted results, is there any limitation or suggestion using the aligned hardscape? Thanks. aligned hardscape.vwx
  13. @Edgar RAMEL Hi Edgar, thank you so much for helping!
  14. @jpccrodrigues This is very inspiring, I have been always overlooked the contour modifier. Thank you very much!
  15. @Kevin K Hi Kevin, thank you so much for posting these. I have a couple questions: 1. The tutorial usually put site modifiers on proposed model to get a comparation between the proposed and existing. I noticed you place modifiers on the existing and regenerate the model, in this case I assume I can't generate a grading map with both proposed/existing contour shown. Do we have any other advantages by doing this? 2. I learned a similar grading methodology to your approach, which is to draw 3d polys/nurbs in the "SIte-DTM-Modifier" class and they will modify the proposed model accordingly. I copy your 3d polys and take a stab, it gives me a rougher version of your model. (top left is yours, bottom right is mine), I guess that could the reason you chose to regenerate the existing model instead. 3. In my case, there are much more points on the file. When our 3d polys encompass existing points, it will not flatten them like a pad. For instance I placed a couple interrupting points in the 3d poly area, and the model ends up with creating "hills". What s the common practice to deal with them? Just erase the existing points that are in our way? I attached the updated file as well, thanks again. grading test MODIFIED v2020 (1) v2021 v2020.vwx

 

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...