Something to look at is the sheet layer resolution. Pick or right click the sheet layer in navigation or organization palette then edit. I think default is 72 dpi which can make jaggy curves. -B

OK, seeing the reversion to layer plane in Kevin's file, and now I'm really miffed. I activated the Working Plane Palette and saved several new working planes with origins at increments above the 000 layer plane origin. File attached with amended name. Drawing 2d circles with center on projection over the extrude corner @ layer plane origin produces, um, different results on the different working planes. Circle reverts(?) to layer plane if working plane origin z is about 5.4" or below. If the working plane origin is 5.45" or above, the new objects stay on the working plane. I altered the extrude value in each test to match the working plane z. It makes the snap easy, but results are same if extrude stays at 4" thick. Also, I noted that usually a hover action on extrude edges (esp the layer plane edges) prior to first click to establish the circle center generates an extension line to the working plane. That's expected. The working planes with lower z values show the extension, but the circle ends up on the layer plane. grrrrr. Just a thought, I'm still on SP3. Wonder if that makes any difference. I'll update soon anyway, but wanted to mention. -B Symbol Edit Issue_B1.vwx

I'm sure not seeing any of this. If I save a new symbol, say the target (all layer plane objects) plus a cube extrusion with the symbol insertion point at center of target, then establish a new working plane on any of the cube faces, then any new 2d objects manifest on the working plane as expected. In my tests, no problems if: • cube (and any new temp working plane) is centered on the symbol insertion or is located anywhere else. •the new working plane is parallel to layer plane and new working plane z axis centered on/over/under the drawing z axis. •the new working plane is not parallel to the layer plane. eg on other cube faces •the symbol contains only the cube (deleted the target layer plane objects) Tried to follow Kevin's workflow exactly, and still nothing of behavior shown. I'm using the Planar Face mode of Working Plane tool (second mode) to make the new plane with a single click. -B

@j. wallace - just curious. What process was successful? Combine the source data ? Then adjust the crop & min/max elevations? And what are the weird symptoms? My tests are on small site model. Yours looks rather complex. There might be some limit to count of combined data objects or to hardware trying to do the math. Or maybe stakes are too complex so 3D loci would be better. Anyway, glad that something worked -B

Does this happen with all symbols in all drawings? Describe more if possible. Are you editing the symbol by selecting it in the Resource Manager? or by editing a symbol placed on a Design Layer? or editing the definition when a Sheet Layer is the active layer? I can't reproduce that behavior. Editing the symbol in the Resource Manager, or one that is placed in a Design Layer or visible in a Sheet Layer (this limits the view options), tried with the symbol definition plane and temporary working planes established via the Working Plane tool (eg the top face of an extrude). My new circle, rectangle, or other object did not revert to the Symbol Definition plane, nor did the centers of the new objects lock to the symbol insertion point or to a z axis projection of symbol insertion point. Also try to track it down with some usual steps - restart system and vwx, make and edit a similar new symbol in a new file close to the drawing origin, paste the problem symbol at center of a new drawing & try the edit. And/or post a vwx file that contains the problem symbol and behaves as shown in your videos. -B

Not sure why the added stakes/contours did not work for J Wallace to combine the two data sets in one Site Model. Maybe the crop needs to be extended to include the new area? or Site Model min/max elevations exclude the new data? I am able to place 3d polys, stakes and 3d loci as source data for same model. These 3 object types can be mixed in any combination for either existing or proposed site model data. My work flow is to right click the Site Model>Edit Source Data>and Paste in Place the source data from the other site model. Seems to work just fine. -B

Help mentions this, but it's especially useful to note that the brightness and saturation can be set to values higher than 100%. Problem is the render time devoted to experimenting with different values. So, maybe test in a Viewport with lower dpi and lower quality HDRI until basics are established. -B

3d polylines and 3d vertices (and stake objects) are all valid site model source data. They can be applied in any combination as data to form the existing status of the site model and/or as modifying data. And, yes, as you suggest, if 3d polylines are included in the source data, the site model is generated as sort of a mesh object created from vertices of the 3d polys (plus any stakes or 3d loci). The form-giving curves between the poly vertices are ignored. -B

Forgot to add the vwx file with the imports. Yes, the vwx fastener choices are not very well aligned with current field practice. For example, where are the "bugle head" sheet rock screws with "grabber" threads that everyone uses for everything even though these screws are too brittle or weak for lots of uses? Slots? They were pretty amazing as 15th century custom made products and as 18th century mass produced tech, but nowadays, not optimal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screwdriver Anyway, I totally agree, the easiest path is to just use the vwx slotted Fastener PIO. A hybrid workflow would be cut to the the heads off the various sizes of screws on McMaster site (or the vwx sheet metal screws) and mate the heads with the vwx 3d Fastener>Set Screw object, probably as blue symbols (insert as group). Object management would be terrible, trying to match up correct head size for each increment of the screws. Also, they aren't symbols after insertion, so a bunch of them in the drawing would bog down the render. At least the lengths could be adjusted. -B Oh, well. Wish list! -B TrussHead.vwx

I was going to try to model one from the Fastener tool, but didn't have the measurements. But remembered that McMaster Carr has 3d models of almost everything on the site. Click the blue product number to get to the data and models for any product. Several model formats. I tried a couple. Here's a 1/4 -20x 1" I added the colors -B

A workaround similar to your spot elevations. Use the Duplicate Along Path command with a stake object (or a 3d locus) and each contour of the lower model.Then Copy/Paste in Place the stakes into the Site Model Source of the one that started with stakes. Choose a duplication interval or number of dupes that gives you a usable Site Model. Not sure why these need to be combined, but would it accomplish anything useful to select the 2 site models and Add Solids? Anyway, I think adding source data points to the one with stakes is the way to go. -B

Here's a little demo. Not mentioned is that I have disabled the Vectorworks prefs>Edit tab for Offset Duplications. https://vimeo.com/230082458 -B

That's nice! Some of that drag & rotate for sub assembly alignment/placement might be eliminated by applying the OIP>Replace Symbol function. I say "might" because this is most effective if the insertion points/rotation and directions of the various sub assemblies are defined to coincide with desired final outcome. A slightly different work flow without the placeholder box might save some steps: Duplicate the Conc Base symbol definition in the Resource Manager & name it Combo. Combo is now a symbol containing the Conc Base symbol. Edit Combo's insertion point as needed for best placement workflow (this does not change Conc Base's insertion point). Combo will be used instead of the placeholder box. The blower symbol will be added into Combo later. Insert a bunch of Combo instances instead of the placeholder box. Place them in the scene to match the offset and rotation achieved at end of the video. (or place them at that target between the pipes, then edit the Combo Insertion Point to achieve the offset globally for all instances) Now Edit the Combo symbol definition 3d elements to add the blower. In the Edit mode, select the conc base symbol and Duplicate in Place. In the OIP of the dupe, click Replace Symbol and choose the blower assy from the list. Depending on how the blower and conc base insertion points were defined, they could align without further offset or rotation. If it's not too awkward to place a more complex symbol, maybe even skip whole the placeholder and Replace Symbol process and just insert a bunch of Combos with the conc base and blower already prepared. But there is probably some other reason to use the placeholder workflow. Anyway, I have been working with a lot of sub assembly symbols lately and find the Replace Symbol very helpful. -B

Anyone else have problem snapping to internal origin? Seems like there used to be pref for this. Simple example: New blank drawing. Top Plan view Draw a circle - away from the drawing origin and not enclosing the drawing origin. Test 1 - Drag the circle by its center to the Origin. Smart Cursor indicates "Internal Origin". No snap is acquired. Release. OIP shows position at 0,0 That's working as expected. Undo to move the circle away form the origin. Test 2 - Select/Copy the circle. Hover near the Origin. Smart cursor indicates "Internal Origin". No snap is acquired. Click. Paste. OIP shows circle close, but not at 0,0. Should snap to the Origin. -B

All good analysis, Kevin! Thanks for keeping this going. Here are some comments, wish extensions on the bug submit topic. Not much new, but I'm adding my voice as momentum: • Text based submittals Bug submit with text description of problem and process can be very tedious and unspecific for both the reporter and the reviewer. Screen shots and screen capture video with narration can be an excellent extension of the text submittals, or even replacement. • Support ticket management and security. I respect that any entity receiving files (eg the bug review team, or the community board) has to track & archive the whole submittal/response communication, and have security in place. Security screening for malware is needed for submittals of screen shots, videos, links to files in cloud (Dropbox, xxxxDrive, personal websites, etc), video channels (youTube, Vimeo, etc), even the example vwx files. External files seem to be malware free on this forum, and the archive/history is, ummmm, the thread. • Crowd review Lots of potential bugs reported via Bug Submit are probably false negatives, eg user error, working as designed, temporary glitch, not reproducable, etc. That's extra work or wasted time for the review team. Loads of possible bugs are posted for review on the community board. Members are quite willing to test, comment, reproduce/verify the problem, or even solve the problem, or confirm bug status. This crowd experience and testing can eliminate many false bugs and better define the actual ones. The crowd might even have ability to identify similar or repeat issues and tag them as similar or (moderator) combine threads. •Bug submit frequent fliers Info in bug submittal forms should be saved so frequent submitters can skip the repetition items. Could a ping process or log in be implemented to auto fill ID, Operating system, vwx version/type, etc? I understand that an easy bug submit process could become an avenue for irate consumers to vent and protest, but a difficult submittal process can also discourage legit submittals. •Bug status reports This is an important step for consumer confidence in the submittal process and more generalized confidence in the software and the company. Was my submittal accepted? Reviewed? Is it a bug? Solutions coming in my lifetime? Workarounds? Apologies? Prizes? The above issues and processes have parallels in the standard posts & discussions in this community board. I definitely support moving the bug submit process closer to the format of this forum or, better, transferring it right into this community board. Try a test? Run the current system and a forum version in parallel, then evaluate after a few months. Implement the test with some protocols and moderators for community board testing/rating and status updates. Eg if several (3? 10?) posters review and confirm the problem, the thread closes, and bug moves higher in the review team schedule. • Pie in the Sky & Sci-Fi AI ••At some point in a bug submittal review, a remote desktop connection between submitter and reviewer might be useful. ••A future Artificial Intelligence Reviewer might support hundreds of simultaneous connections at beginning or any stage of bug submit or any other tech support ticket. enough, already! -B -B