Benson Shaw

Member
  • Content count

    3,174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

143 Spectacular

4 Followers

About Benson Shaw

  • Rank
    Vectorworks Addict

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Public Artist
  • Homepage
    www.bensonshaw.com
  1. I also want to point out that, in defense of current system, the snapshots can act as history of design development. Properly classed and layered snapshots can represent many versions and options of both exist and proposed. The site model itself does not have a history to access if an earlier version is required. -B
  2. @line-weightYes, same principal, separate snapshot for each status. The several snapshots could be placed on same design layer and classed separately, so VP overrides could show desired features and modes of the site model. I agree it's kind of funny setup, but have no better proposal. There would be drawbacks for almost any way to do this. As @Bohsuggests, separate site models? -B
  3. I'm always suspicious of that Center after Import option. Any experience welcome! What does vwx use as the center of the imported objects? Usually, vwx picks the center point of the extents of the selection or import objects, or the geometric center. If two sets of objects are separately imported with the centering option turned on, say two survey data sets from different parts of a large site, do the two sets import correctly located relative to each other? Or do they end up overlayed/overlapped with their geometric centers at 000? And, I often see unintended or improperly translated artifacts in the imports of dwg/dxf files. Examples include text or other bits of objects far away from the geometry, or text with a miles long, empty boundary after the final character in the text string, or the center of a nearly flat arc located far from the arc perimeter and other geometry. I suspect that these types of distant objects affect the centering in a way that defeats proper location of the imported geometry? This kind of problem or suspicion would be eliminated if I know that the dwg files have some common reference point and direction that vwx will reliably read as the center. I can't know whether the dwg is properly constructed, mutually referenced, or imported without some way to test or compare the import to the source file. I usually just import the several dwg files without centering into a separate vwx "shuttle" file, then reference some or all into a new vwx project file via a design layer viewport.
  4. @Jim Smithcould you post a vwx file with several (or all? how many are there?) of the "raw" contours, so we can test. Leave the points/segments in same condition they arrive after the import. Could be that easiest solution is to trace each contour with vwx 2d polyline (I like the cubic spline mode). Then ignore or delete the imported versions. Will these contours become source objects for a 3d Site Model? -B
  5. OIP>Create Site Model Snapshot. The snapshot is a static version of the site model at time the snapshot is created. It contains/displays attributes, modifier results, and settings at time of creation, including the existing or proposed status. The Snapshot location is coincident with location where the source site model was created. IE, if the site model was never moved, then the snapshot will be coincident with the site model. But if the site model was created at Point A and then moved to point B, the snapshot will generate at Point A. For Sheet Layer Viewports, one workflow is to make a snapshot of the existing status of the site model, place the snapshot on a new design layer created for the snapshot and any section lines associated with the existing model. If the existing condition of the site model changes, replace the old snapshot with an updated one, and update the associated VPs. Use the Make VPs of the proposed version directly from the site model (rather than a snapshot). Or place sequential snapshots on new design layers as the proposed model evolves. Probably lots of other workflows for this. -B
  6. Right click on the Site Model, and scroll down the list to select Edit Site Model Crop. Screen changes to Top/Plan where you can draw any 2d shape to crop the site model. Easiest context is to have all of the crop area inside the bounds of the site model. If existing data does not fill the desired crop, there are some choices with the other edit modes. But either way, draw the crop and exit the edit mode. If no edits were previously made to contours, then choose Recreate from Source Data and add some fake contours or 3d loci that make sense. If contours were previously edited, choose Edit Existing Contours and, in a second operation Edit Proposed Contours. Draw extensions to the contours out to the crop boundary. Exit the edit mode and update the Site Model. -B
  7. @Bruce Kieffer In addition to above, another idea to explain why the conditions are reversed when the model is pasted into a new blank file - In the orig file selected wall OIP: Visible walls Top Bound = Layer Elevation Invisible walls Top Bound = Layer Wall Height (or maybe the other way around) Probably also: Layer set up (Nav Palette): Design Layer tab>Edit Layer (the one with walls)> Layer Wall Height is set to a value greater than zero In the new blank file OIP Height>Top Bound conditions are reversed for each wall. And/Or Design Layer settings in Nav Palette have Wall Height =0 (default, I think) Or some combo of layer settings and wall OIP top bound settings causes some some walls to have height = zero making them invisible, except in Top/Plan. As usual, just guessing -B
  8. A workaround idea - Start with the curtain wall to make the desired vertical frame elements and locations of horizontal elements. •Class the built in curtainwall glass to a "flat glass-hidden" class, and hide that class. •Class the built in Horizontal frame parts to a "Straight Frame-Hidden" class and hide it. •Model the curved panes and class them visible. •Model the curved horizontals and class them visible Easiest solution is for the curved glass & frame to be continuous as shown in your example. Or they can be cut using duplicated or extracted frame elements as sectioning surfaces. Even though they will be hidden, the POI curtain wall flat glass and straight horizontal elements are useful guides to help place the custom modeled curved elements. The hidden straight/flat elements are controlled in the PIO dialog as the wall design evolves, then used as guides to reposition or replace the custom curved elements. Might be useful to make a symbol for each vertical type/width of frame spanning several floors, placed as instances. Or symbols for each type/size of horizontal unit, eg to make prelim take offs for the openings. But compared to continuous glass and horizontal frame elements, these symbols would be very time consuming to modify or replace when wall design changes. -B
  9. I just now revisited your wish thread and voted! Thanks for all the wishes and critiques, Kevin. -B
  10. I tried several object types to see what would happen. Polygons are low on my usage chart, too. Agree that these edit features could be useful in the clip results. The Modify>Convert to Polygon command facilitates all this, but, then it's a polygon rather than a polyline. Especially since the rectangle cannot be easily converted to Polyline when needed. So? Wishes? Poll? 1. Polyline clips to Polyline? And/Or 2. Feature request for Convert to Polyline command (with an easy shortcut)? In this exercise clip the object then Convert to Polyline? And/Or 3. Further evolution of the vwx Rectangle to allow Reshape similar to Polyline? Currently, conversion of a curve to Polygon results in new object composed of myriad short, straight segments. I never understood why the Convert options do not include Polyline. Normally, I would want a conversion, say of a 3d NURBS curve projected onto a 2d plane to be comprised of a series of straight segments matching any point vertex segments in the source object, and user pref for curved source segments as arc, bezier or spline. This would probably also require a tolerance parameter. I usually need control points on the vector, so Spline vertices are more important to me than Bezier. But conversion with Arc and Bezier points should be included in the wish. -B
  11. Interesting find and question! Here’s a bit more testing using same general setup where each source object to clip looks like a rectangle but may have open or closed top edge: Clipped Rectangle = 2 Rectangles Clipped Polyline, Open = 1 Rectangle, 1 Polygon (open) Clipped Polyline, Closed = 2 Rectangles Clipped Polygon, Open = 1 Rectangle, 1 Polygon (open) Clipped Polygon, Closed = 2 Rectangles Summary: Closed product is always rectangle Open product is always polygon My pref? I don’t really care. I sort of? expect the clip product to be same as source object. If the process always produced polygons, I might sometimes wish for rectangles. Besides, in v2018 (and v2017?), dbl click (Reshape) any rectangle offers corner drags but not mid point drags) out of square - result is a polygon. So, to my mind, not full edit advantage if clip produces a rectangle. There might be some uncertainty in worksheets if, for instance, a criterion of By Object Type>Polygon is in effect. New rectangles would fail the call unless new criteria are added to call rectangles, or any other new object types. Vigilance required! Actually, I'm more concerned about polylines converting to polygons. Wish that didn't happen. -B
  12. @Phil huntand others (if this is still unresolved) in v2018, I don't think you can recover the source stakes used to create the site model, nor can you access them to show the labels. As Syncronicity suggested above, save a duplicate set of the stakes and other source objects for future use. Or draw new stakes onto the terrain surface. Earlier versions allow access to the source data. Not sure why access was eliminated in v2018. Stakes will present their labels on the Site Model only if the stake OIP> 3d Display is set to None. The other choices, Extrude (shows a little 3d stake) and Locus do not present labels in 3d views. These labels are planar and parallel to the ground plane, so the label orientation might need adjusting to prevent it being buried in the terrain. To send stake(s) onto the terrain surface, choose OIP Mode>Set Elev to Site Model. Or use the Send to Surface command. Adjusting the Stake z value in the OIP changes the label value , but does not move the stake up or down. (grrrrr. counter intuitive!) -B
  13. @RDS CasaAs far as I know, grottos, tunnels, caves, arches, any undercut features are not currently possible with standard site model techniques. But I would love to be wrong about this! Your first idea of trench and lid approach will work pretty well. Make the trench with pads. Your tunnel or subterranean parts of the building can be modeled with solid primitives, walls & slabs, landscape/retaining walls, etc. The lid can be mesh or loft other surface object. Or can be another site model, but this is limited if any backfilling or fitting around the tunnel/building is needed. Might be best to hide the skirt or use grid mode for the surface and add primitive objects to "fit" around the tunnel volume. In all this you also have to manage the cut fill and other data from several sources, and manage attributes of the several objects. Another approach is to create the tunnel volume as a 3d object, eg Extrude, or Extrude Along Path or other, and use the Solid Subtract command to remove that volume from the site model. This creates a Solid Subtraction object, the Site Model shape with a hole in it, which works visually and in sections. This technique requires the Tunnel volume to use for the subtraction, and a Tunnel model (roadway, decks, vent shafts, lights, drains, emergency exits, etc) to place in the void. Unfortunately, This technique has the same multi source problems of data management as the trench and lid. Plus, you loose control of textures and other attributes of the Site Model. Plus, any mods to the Site Model or the tunnel environment require enter/edit the Solid then edit the Site Model or the Tunnel volume. Working in the Solid Subtraction edit mode might also be fraught with crashes, so vigilance required (something strange just happen?) and persistance with the Save command. If you can, please share some screen shots so we see how you are addressing the challenges. -B
  14. My desire for OIP access to Site Model graphics is response to my frequent need to test or trouble shoot the graphics. Sooo time consuming to enter/exit the triple nest of settings>graphics>edit dialogs and rerender and repeat many times to test more options. Tracking the positions of the target field as the dialogs open requires more focus than it should. I concede that nesting is one possible organizational device, amongst many. I disagree that the current nested graphics dialog is any better organized than a direct button in OIP would be. The graphics dialog access could also be placed in the Site Model right click context menu.
  15. And, while we are on the Site Model interface: Site Model Section VP OIP should have option to fill the section below the terrain. Seems that the Site Model Section VP has to have some depth, or the cut plane just disappears. What up with that? I wish for a cut plane VP. No depth. Solid line through the DTM with option for fill below the line. -B