Benson Shaw

No geo ref. Also, I can use the rotation field in the prop line, but then need to reorient. or rotate the source poly with the rotate tool from a known point, form the PropLine, rotate it back. OR?

Work flow options? An imported topo with property line converts well as dwg basic objects to vwx But a vwx property line object traced over the imported line segments produces bearings that do not match the survey bearings (text blocks). Others will work in vwx to generate a landscape plan. Rotational difference is ≈17°. So, I could: Hide the vwx bearings? and paste in the imported text? Rotate the vwx object so that the bearings report same as import? And, therefore rotate all the other imported data and vwx drawing objects over it. Adjust the vwx internal "North"? but how do I do that? Create/rotate a DVLP of the import? or of the vwx file with all the LA and Arch stuff? Any experience or conjecture welcomed. -B

FYI, the file is not downloading. Might be too big for this forum. Put in DropBox? -B

If your license is Landmark, Architect or Designer you can use the 3d polys to creat a site model. Command is in the AEC >Terrain menu or Landmark>Create Site Model menu depending on which vwx ou have. post back if not working -B

I have no knowledge of VCarve so guessing here, but I do send files out for waterjet and CNC router cutting. I think you might want to work in two vwx files. One can have viewports, annotations, etc. The other has only the design layer geometry, but no viewports. Export this second one. (or only export the geometry layers). It might be good to place all the geometry in a single layer. guessing again. I sometimes make text notes on an export design layer, but that's risky because might get interpreted as something to incorporate into the CNC product. PDF of viewports sent with the dwg export is often a good way if others need notes or instruction. -B

Try putting the drawing into Screen Plane when moving the Keyframe or points on the path. This should prevent them from any motion in the z direction. Switch back to Layer or other plane mode as needed. -B

@ford519 Hi, again. I think for the comforter use 3d PowerPack> Drape Surface over a bed shape. Apply a texture. For the pillow, sort of depends on what you want. Search of this forum reveals several threads about pillows, but they are pretty old and the demo files have been removed. Here is one with description for a pillow: There may be a few in this forum Resource Share - Symbols. Also, you can search the 3dWarehouse. Those will be sketchup files, but your vwx2018 can import if they are older files. OK Post back if you things are not working for you. -B

@ford519 Please post again with items you are trying to model. The techniques described above all work. There are many other approaches. Different techniques apply to different cloth contexts - flat expanses, swags, pleated banners, hanging draped expanses, curtains, etc, etc. Also, a cloth texture can make any 3d surface have a cloth appearance. Assigning an image as the fill attribute can make any 2d shape have a cloth appearance. -B

Asking, not snarking: Do you think the carpenter or electrician could efficiently view, markup, communicate, display problems and questions via those existing softwares in a noisy rainy sire or in bright sun up on a lift. Seems it could work now, but I have seen zero implementation. Might require loads of training if all that software is required. Maybe it’s out there already in bigger projects than I encounter. Equipment is rather fragile at this time. Military probably has some great stuff! -B

Looks like the pandemic is a kick in the pants in that direction. Spy software to watch remote workers is now in high demand by employers. Even construction industry could take a few steps toward remote work on site. Some affordable, hardy, reliable tablet or glasses that can display and communicate about design intent and feedback trade worker’s immediate context and comments . This would eliminate those meetups with supervisor and the big roll of paper drawings. Anyway workers could be more autonomous with such a tech upgrade. -B

@jpccrodrigues - Glad you made this work. Check that volume, though. I was skeptical of the reported value because I made a (wrong) estimate. I now believe the volume report is correct for the shape. My shape reports 24000 m3 (note to all: US math places a comma for thousands separators, many others use a period as the thousands separator, so 24,000 US = 24.000 in many other places). Several things could cause the differences in reported volumes: Smoothing angle of the mesh, lowest point of the site model skirt, lowest point of the extrude. I see that your site model low point is set to 70 which corresponds to the lowest contour. I adjusted my site model min elevation to 10 so that bottom of pond is not right at extent of the site model skirt. My terrain developed a slightly deeper depression at bottom of pond. I placed bottom of my extrude at 10 as well. @michaelk - This process with the Project tool works to generate a volume, but I think it requires a section through the terrain at top of dam to generate the shape of the surface of the water. Unless you have another way to generate the shape? I think this still requires ungrouping the site model to create a mesh and subsequently performing a Solid Intersection or Solid Section. @bcd I like this! But it destroys the contours at bottom of pond. Maybe just use this on a duplicate layer to calculate the volume and use other means to display the pond bottom and water graphic? I think more accurate water surface contour depends on the dam being in place to generate that contour shape. What might be the best work flow? Edit that 96 contour to represent inner shape of the dam? Or use a Pad raised to top of dam? Or add the pad to represent the dam and create new contours from that and generate a new site model or ??? There is probably something really simple. All - I seem to remember being able to make solid operations directly with the site model in Mesh mode. Did something change in v2020? or is that an incorrect memory??? Or just something about this site model? It doesn't seem too far from Origin. -B

@jpccrodrigues 1. Make a copy of the layer with the extrude and the Site Model. 2. (optional) In order to speed up the Solid Section in step 7 below, trim away the site model around the extrude with the Split tool. 3. Select the Site Model>Ungroup>accept the warning. 4. Result is Skirt, Contours (group), and Mesh 5. Delete the Skirt and Contours 6. Select the Mesh and the Extrude 7. Section Solids - make sure the Mesh is highlighted. 8. Result is probably the volume below the mesh. Click the OIP "Reverse Sides" button. For some reason this solid does NOT report a correct Volume in the Volumetric Properties dialog. I tried sectioning with a Drape Surface of the Mesh and some other things. Volume never correct. Maybe others can sort that out. Post with your results. -B

@Johalperin Just a guess, but perhaps your viewport is set to display (some of) the design layers as gray instead of completely visible. Try adjusting the layer visibility settings for your Sheet Layer Viewport. 1. Navigate to your sheet layer and select the viewport. 2. In the OIP click the Layers button. This opens the Viewport Layer Properties dialog. 3. The dialog displays a list of all design layers in the drawing file. A. To the right of the list are 3 columns (unlabeled, sorry). B. Left hand column is for Visible, middle column is Invisible, right column is gray. C. A click in any column will display an icon indicating the setting for that design layer. 4. For each layer in the list, click in the appropriate column to show/hide/gray that design layer. 5. Changing these settings does not affect anything on the design layers or other viewports. It only controls display of objects in this VP. The OIP class button for the ViewPort has a similar arrangement to control class visibility of objects shown in the vp. As with the layers, changing these visibility settings does not affect the objects in the design layers or in other viewports. The Class Properties dialog also has a class override feature which allows edit of class attributes displayed in the VP (does not affect class settings elsewhere in the drawing). OK. Tell us whether you get it working. Definitely post back if this is not the issue. -B

I was reminded again, that 3d Parametric Constraints would be helpful in many situations. Currently these apply only to 2d objects:From VWX Help: Parametric constraints can be placed on all 2D objects. They cannot be placed on 3D objects except for walls, symbols, and plug-in objects that have 2D components. Apparently, the constraints only operate in layer or screen plane But not in any 3d plane. eg if a locus or other 2d object is added as component of a symbol or group, the symbol or group will act constrained in Top view. But the group or symbol loses the constraint if the 2d component is moved in z direction. Here is a recent thread with a goal that might benefit from 3d constraints, especially if these can be incorporated into Marionette: Here are a couple previous wishes for 3d parametric constraints from 2016 & 2012. There may be others: https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/45384-improve-2d-and-add-3d-constraints/#comment-231620 https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/33565-3d-parametric-constraints/&do=findComment&comment=165999 They were posted prior to the wish voting. I'm adding my votes. -B

@roverton18 That all makes sense. I guess this means that folding along any edge will not exceed the chamfer. Or, perhaps the envisioned folds are always away from the chamfer. Parametric constraints would be very helpful for this. But the vwx parametric constraints only apply to 2d objects, walls and symbols containing 2d components (and only if the 2d components remain on the layer plane). I'm making a wish for 3d constraints. -B