Jump to content

Benson Shaw

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

579 Spectacular

About Benson Shaw

  • Rank
    Vectorworks Addict

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Public Artist
  • Homepage
  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @Ylenia Looks like you almost have what you need. Regarding stakes - A stake can be configured to report the elevation of the point in 3d where it is placed without affecting the site model. Using snap points or Automatic Plane, a stake can be placed at any point in the drawing (eg a corner or center of your roof terrace). The stake can display as a 3d extrude for 3d views. Unfortunately the stake label only shows in TopPlan. One could create a text linked to elevation record for the stake. But, instead of a stake, you could create a pyramid, cube or other 3d object with text on each face linked to an elevation record or data tag. The text updates when the object is moved. This object can be classed for visibility preferences. Regarding slabs - Looks like your pad did not modify the terrain. Verify that the Pad is assigned to Proposed model, that the terrain is updated. You might also try the Pad with retaining edge (creates a Grade Limits so the pad "cuts" vertically through the terrain) This should "cut" the terrain to reveal your slab. Or, instead of Pad/Slab combo use the Hardscape Slab Modifier option. This type of slab has a built in Pad modifier. OK Post back as needed. -B
  2. I did not look at the files yet. Will try soon. But, the terrain looks as though the DTM mesh is connecting directly to the ramp modifiers resulting in extra bumps and facets. A grade limits might help by allowing the ramps to sunk/rise into the DTM. Try surrounding the combined footprint of the ramps and platform with a poly ( trace or via the outer boundary tool), offset it a few mm, and convert the poly to a grade limits via Objects from Shapes. Update the site model. Just a thought -B
  3. @ebramhall Oh! looks great! Glad it’s working for you. Some ideas for edit workflow: 1. Create the frame as two objects so that the wavy interior is a separate unit. The ungroup process to edit fillets then only affects limited edges. Requires cutting a corresponding shape from the outer frame. When edits complete, duplicate the two parts and add solids. When totally satisfied, convert a copy to Generic Solid. 2. Save a version of the whole solid subtraction in its status prior to filleting. For edits, work on a duplicate of the saved one. When edits complete, redo all the fillets. 3. Combo of above? Note that each saved status can be same position on a separate design layer. Or can be saved as a symbol - name to indicate status. Or can be moved a known distance from previous status. Process can be saved as a template file if needed for similar objects. 4. Save status copies at some of the critical steps, and make a duplicate of the final fillet object. Convert the duplicate to Generic Solid. You loose the history, but this solid can be used in new solid adds/subtracts, which might be easier in any future edits. Critique these ideas and post back with problems. You say dozens of similar items? The hive mind should be able to come up with a useful workflow once we understand the choke points. -B
  4. Aligned Hardscape Slab works really well for this. I sent you a forum PM. -B
  5. @ebramhall The cutting volume is that shape/volume I described in my 2nd post. That is only my name for it. Sorry if it seemed like an item in the tool palette! The new volume is used to cut away the unwanted portions of the miter. Look at the new design layer in my revised file. My third post was a renewed effot to make this work with your filleted EAP, but too much is uncertain if the EAP has fillets. I really think you should start over. Work as described in my 2nd post. Recreate your EAP, but no fillets. Extract the cove surfaces at one corner and split them as shown to establish (extract) edges. After you have the edges, delete those extracted surfaces. Snap NURBS versions of R1,R2 to the ends of the new edges. Use Create Surface from Curves to create a NURBS surface. Shell the surface. Extend both ends of this shell by extracting then shelling the ends, plus make another shell from one face of the extension at miter pointy end (up? Down? Depends on orientation of the EAP). This extra one envelopes the outer point of the miter. Add Solid the 4 shells to create a volume which can cut the EAP corner via solid subtract. ok post more if this is not working. The forum is here to help! -B
  6. I think, prior to rounding the miter joint, the EAP should not have any edge fillets, probably not even the outer point corners. Then, the extrude needs to be moved and it's extrude depth increased so that it cuts the unfilleted edges. The extrude does not pass exactly through the arc ends of the outer corner. Maybe that's a problem caused by prior filleting of edges and corners? Having looked at your file, I think maybe a cutting volume might be the better approach. Let the cutter round over the entire miter, including those outside pointy corners. Post back if things are not going where you want. -B
  7. Here's a refinement using a cutting volume. It's on a separate Design Layer. No need to separate the two EAP profiles. Fillet the edge (top edge in my sample) after the corner subtractions. Looks like you are getting there! I hope that corner surface is correct shape - tangent to the surrounds as envisioned. HTH -B CornerFillet 2 v2021.vwx
  8. OK, wrest me out of hibernation! Here is one possible solution. First step is to pull apart the EAP into an upper and lower profiles. Later, the lower EAP one can be filleted to match the edges of the upper shape. My example uses same radius for both ends of the fillet, but they could be different. Is final use to guide CNC? Not sure what happens if a surface is covering a void. That void could be filled, but not explaining that here. Repeat process at each corner. This is one of many possible solutions. (think what could be done with sand paper and a rasp!) -B CornerFillet v2021.vwx
  9. Some faces can be selected via a view change to expose the face. Note that the spacebar shortcut to temporarily activate the Pan Tool is also a gateway to temporarily activate other options in the Basic Palette. With the PusnPull tool active, hold down the spacebar, click icon in Basic palette to activtate the flyover tool, drag to adjust the view, release the spacebar, continue operation with the PushPull Tool. -B
  10. The Helix-Spiral command in Model>3d Power Pack could use some updating. As shown in the image, the command default context uses an angular geometry inconsistent with usual angular/rotational geometric standards. I think these inconsistencies should be amended to meet standard geometric practices and calculations. The command applies 0° to the Y axis. Standard places 0° on X axis. The command uses clockwise as the positive angular rotation direction. Standard is counter clockwise. The command default creates a left hand coil. My opinion: Command should default to create a right hand coil. Note: Reversing direction of the axis object alters start location, but not the coil direction. I understand that a revision of these, eg in a future vwx version, might reconfigure objects made by previous versions of the command. But, perhaps an out of date bounding box or other warning could be implemented. Enhancements? Initial thoughts. Add a "Sweep" field to the OIP as a direct way to extend the sweep of an existing Helix, without changing the pitch. Add option to unlock the Turn/Pitch relationship, so that both fields are active at same time. Add OIP fields to show/amend a single turn helix of any selected helix. Creation enhancement: Creation object to be used only the axis location and direction indicator rather than current Direction and Pitch. Use parameter fields to apply pitch (length along the direction) and sweep. More? -B
  11. @LarryO You probably already have a working solution, but thought I would put in a visual with the helical spiral and the duplicate array tools in action. Is this something like your goal?Is the total rise 473.7? Is the total sweep 10.93°? This seems like seating rather than stairway? Or maybe I'm totally missing. The top rail would be way better as a single EAP using a helical path with the total sweep and total rise. The axis object is more of a partial pitch, eg pitch for the specified sweep at creation, rather than for a full turn. The Helical Spiral tool has some confusing parameters, but it does work. The sweep parameter should be included in the OIP so that one could extend the spiral at same pitch. The angular direction seems to start at noon and run clockwise, rather that the standard euclidian 3 o'clock heading anti clockwise. I will post a wish to bring it into compliance with standard radial conventions. -B Helical Stairv2021.vwx
  12. @Andy Broomell Yes. I'm not complaining here. I'm good with the tool in the current and previous forms. Actually, I think it was not even part of the default workspace for a few versions, so glad it's on the default Basic palette. But I can see that @zoomer's decades long wish for a split to move only might be helpful. It's a dilemma for everyone, and not just this tool. Users, Interface planners and engineers, training creators, sales reps, and probably others have to balance ease of use, reasonable consistency with past versions and with other software, screen space in the palettes and mode bars, available key combos, and lots more. Key command vs tool mode buttons vs separate tools? The mythical Super User knows all and remembers all for every tool and command in every situation, so it's not an issue. The rest of us create a work flow we remember and implement for frequent situations and try our best to learn and remember the less frequent situations. Not sure why, but I get tripped up more often by the MBP mode memory than in other tools. I can kick myself and deal with the error, and try to change habits (eyes on the mode bar!). Maybe I'm getting better. Anyway, still enjoying v2021. -B
  13. Gotta agree here. I’m fine with the new 2021 arrangement of functions, but it is really just a rearrangement. Your continuing wish for MBP and CBP is well conceived.
  14. I'm finally exploring v2021. Nice, so far! I did get a chuckle from this (auto fill ?) language in the MBP tool tip for Object Retention. -B
  15. @Rossford Workaround. Would it work for you to Group the 2d polys of a generic mound, then adjust the bounding box of the group? Might require some rotating of the selection and/or adding a surrounding rectangle prior to Group command. Then after the stretch or compress rotate to desired orientation and ungroup . -B


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...