Jump to content

Jack2022

Member
  • Posts

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

54 Excellent

2 Followers

Personal Information

  • Location
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

1,752 profile views
  1. Thanks for the responses. I seem to be able to adjust the transverse profiles ok - just not the main profile. I noticed that if you break a hardscape down into smaller pieces the original profile is better placed and doesn't need amending. Seems a bit random. Would be good if an update made the tool work as presumably intended.
  2. To add, often the profile is created in a nice curve as below. in this case there is no problem.
  3. Hi All, As part of my journey transitioning from using aligned hardscapes with stakes with no site model to using site modifiers with site models and slope profiles - I am finding a problem. I first started making 'path' site modifiers then essentially duplicating to add a draped hardscape over the top (prone to inaccuracies along the edges and double the time to amend a design). I then realised you don't need to duplicate effort and just make a single 'path' hardscape on the same layer as the site model and add profiles to that. All good until you have curves and the profile doesnt sit anywhere near the direction of travel. Screen shot below. There appears to be an option to edit the profile and move the vertices around using the reshape tool in edit mode. Unfortunately the reshape tool doesn't allow you to move them. The cursor can select the vertex but no matter what I do the vertex won't move. Any help would be appreciated.
  4. Also with clash detection the BIM manager usually sets a degree of tolerance according to discipline. For engineers it's a small tolerance, for landscape usually higher - can be as much as 50mm as most items are not critical (obviously some are but it gets rid of most clashes). I wouldn't expect any to be set less than 1mm. Glad positioning is resolved.
  5. Hi, To point 1: I suggest it doesnt matter. The coords you've received are 0.6 and 0.2 of a mm which is an odd thing to need unless you're working for Space X. Point 2: I've found angle to true north from Revit users is usually the inverse to what we use in VW. So for you it is 360-328.93= 31.07. This might solve the issue of their model not arriving in the right place. I usually import a georeferenced 2D dwg layout which always comes in correct to check. Hope that helps.
  6. I am getting this issue now. have just updated but no improvement. Walls are unusably slow. Anyone else found a fix or reason?
  7. Thanks Jeff, I had a play with the columns tool and it works well. Can add bases and caps and good control over parameters.
  8. Thanks Thomas - will consider floor /level heights as the Z base value on the next one.
  9. Hi All, Is there a tool to create wall piers for free standing landscape walls? I have googled but no hits. Not sure if these are called something else in the U.S. perhaps. Thanks, Jack
  10. Thanks Tamsin - I will have a go with these tools. Kind regards, Jack
  11. Hi All, I have recently switched from using aligned hardscapes to draped hardscapes with a site model modified by using grades. Generally it works great! Issue with curved pathways: Is the simplest way to create a curved fall in the site model via nurbs curves set to the DTM class? I saw on one thread where that was suggested. It is ok just a pain when you are modelling top and bottom of kerbs along a falling curve. Also a pain on designs with lots of curves. Maybe a way to create curved grades?? Regards, Jack
  12. Thanks Tamsin - all clear. And it works great now!
  13. Ah - no I don't. Placing a grade limit around the whole site model seems to have resolved it. Grade limits were mentioned on the other thread but not explicitly that you need one around the outside of the entire site to make the grades work as expected (in my case the whole site will be modified hence around the whole site). Many - thanks. This should speed things up no-end.
  14. Hi All, This is an issue from another post but it seems to have become lost in a wider discussion there so posting in isolation here. I am hoping to make my workflow more efficient by using site models more. Instead of using stake objects and aligned hardscapes I hope to modify site models using grades and stakes and have hardscapes drape onto the site model. When I link 4 grades to make a square area the centre of the square sits at existing levels instead of an elevated surface inferred between grade points (as I would expect an aligned hardscape to behave between stakes). I understand that this shouldn't happen if the grades are linked. Am I missing a key step? Image below. modifier grades and site model on same layer. Many thanks, Jack
×
×
  • Create New...