Jump to content

Benson Shaw

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Benson Shaw

  1. @line-weight no worries, i sussed your intent. I think it’s worth hammering on these NURBS issues in the wishlist and other forums, and, when appropriate, with vwx staff at events such as version rollouts, design summits, training seminars, etc. -B
  2. @line-weight Right on with closer look. Those nasty facets are still with us. Regarding level side to side - original concept did not aim at that. But it is possible. Rather than center line, this example makes the level consistently normal to the inner curve. Can also be done with DAP from a center line but then requires adjusting the rectangles to meet both curves, not difficult. Also, would help to have a plan view to understand how the path splays. Regarding the mismatched NURBS - I get a best result by lofting a combined core/side bank (Design Layer 3). If desired, sectioning along the joint produces separate banks. Not perfect match, but much better than the separate lofts. Another workaround would be to create a separate side bank a bit low and embedded a bit sideways into the core. A vwx loft seems to "pull" the surface edges a little tighter than corresponding NURBS curve guides, eg the visible outer curve (green) of the side bank. Also, there is some faceting of the horizontal surface, especially noticeable as a fold near the foot of the ramp. Who knows, maybe these imperfections in vwx NURBS will never be resolved. I did not attempt a model with more stations, but that might produce a loft closer to the planar guides. I made an intermediate variation in Design Layer 2, experimenting with establishing the level line across the path. I would be interested to know how the NURBS from vwx port into Rhino or other. Are these vwx NURBS curves and lofts faceted the same way in the more advanced NURBS modeling software? OK trying to help the OP here. -B Embankment via Loft v2018 v2.vwx Embankment via Loft v2022 v2.vwx
  3. Here's another take with simple loft. It would help to have the plan view, but this seems close. In v2022, the NURBS faceting seems minimal. So maybe they improved, or perhaps the scale here is within reasonable bounds. Prior to loft, I adjusted the sloping curve vertices with Reshape tool, constrained to z, so that the pathway ends are tangent at connections to overpass and to ground plane. The loft creates a hollow object with open end. If solid is desired, Add Surface the NURBS rectangle, or use the 3d Power Pack>Create Planar Cap (makes a NURBS Surface), then Add Solids, then Convert to Generic Solid. This can also be done with Aligned Slab, but I think that started in v2019, or some other techniques if a Site Model is used. -B Embankment via Loft v2018.vwx Embankment via Loft v2022.vwx
  4. Recent hardware order. Someone apparently forgot to check the box! -B
  5. This is all likely a "march of technology" situation. Automotive and aerospace designers had computer aided design and manufacturing tools in the late 1950s and 60s (eg Search Pierre Bezier), with early robotics prior to that. By 1980s, some Arch/LA designers employed CAD specialists, but many still worked with mylar and parallel bars. Most builders had not adopted CAD. In graphics, paper design persisted with a few adopting Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. Ten years later, most Arch/LA designers, small and large had CAD. Many builders, too, at least in the admin/bidding departments of larger firms. In graphics and publishing, well, Desk-Top-Publishing happened, and EVERYONE had some form of CAD (amazing what can be done with MS Office and equiv, let alone PS, Illustrator, and loads of lower cost/free/ cloud options. These days, almost every designer in any field and almost every fabricator/builder/design client has some access to and skill with some form of CAD. @PatStanford stated it completely correctly about models and data rich models - liability exposure is deep. At least at this time. But looking at the arc of the AEC, graphics and other design endeavors, it seems that models, complete with fly/walk through and build instruction are already here for early adopters and not too far away for many or most others. The skill set and software capabilities are not static. They will invade homes, permit desks, workplaces, . . . People get ready. There's a train a'comin'. -B
  6. @Will M Purge Command, as you say, is typically for removing unused items. The command was expanded in some recent version (2020?) to include the section of options for deleting coincident duplicates. Note that this command option deletes only actual duplicate geometry. Eg a circle with no fill on stacked on a duplicate circle with fill does not comprise duplicate objects, or if the classes are different, or the layers. Likewise, a stack of lines with same center point and at same angle but with varied lengths, or lines of same length but slightly different angles are not treated as dupes, and will not be affected by Purge. I think safest to work on a copy of the pathway source objects in a separate file to prevent unintended Purge or other deletion. Anyway, problem may not be duplicated objects. Post again if this isn't working to contain the texture bed. Or better yet, post the solution. Good luck tracking this down! -B
  7. Might be some overlapping segments because snaps were missed. So, even if closed, the texture tries to go back and forth over the same line, or some other problem with overlaps, coincident segments, etc. or Wild idea - That dwg gave you a stack arrangement of elements. Process to Compose/Close the poly assembly might yield an element that looks like a single thing, but is actually still a stack of several items some of which are closed. Applying the whole as a texture bed confuses the Site Model update. But that's total conjecture. Alternately, long ago in a really old version of vwx, some segments of some imported dwg contours just did not act like polygons. Unclear why - I had to trace. Doesn't matter. One way to trouble shoot: import the dwg into a new blank vwx file in vwx, determine the class of the pathway polys - click one and note class designation in OIP apply Select Similar tool, with pref set for Class, to select all the relevant polys Copy, then Paste in Place to a new layer, or even another file. Now that they are isolated, examine - look for gaps, overlaps, missed snaps, etc. zoom to end points, or drag away then snap back. Select All to note the count. If corrections are made, try Select All>Compose>Close and note the object count again. If more than 1, apply the Purge command or Move the keeper, eg 100mx100m, select/delete everything else, Move the keeper back to orig location. Another way: How was the dwg created? Did they trace an aerial view? Or just draw to suit an imagined figure on the map? Probably not many points of the path directly measured by survey, sooooo --- Just trace the dwg with as few points as necessary. Use the Cubic Spline mode of the Polygon tool. Add a few points with Edit as needed. Select/Copy the trace in the isolated file, then Paste in Place into new layer in project file. Check that the new layer closely follows the project dwg Create texture from the trace instead of from the dwg vectors. -B
  8. Looks like the tree branches, the cabinets on right end and several wall pieces are the problems. Are any of those objects symbols or groups or other container objects? The container class or the classes of the contained objects might have no fill, and therefore render WF. Anyway a trouble shoot idea: Copy/paste the problem objects into a new blank file for testing. Post it here, too. Somehow this can be solved! -B
  9. Working with these dialogs for visibility issues in another thread. But saw the naming inconsistency and wanted to separately point it out. I think it's a legacy thing - an older dialog retained after functions split in newer version UI. Or was this intended? -B
  10. Hi, BGD I see two things which may affect this, but I'm working in v2022, so might be misleading. For sure the dialogs are different. 1st: in class settings for the class Component-ExtFinish-Site Stone Paving, the texture is not turned on (also, this is IMO a good candidate for Use at Creation): 2nd: in hardscape component settings, the texture component is set to "Texture" rather than Class Texture: Ported the v2022 file back to v2019, but cannot check it in native form. HTH -B Hardscape v2022 v2019.vwx
  11. Just now tested in v2021 and v2022. Turns out no need to group the VP prior to rescale in #2. That might be a valid workflow for earlier versions. Test is advised. But in method #2, if rescale of text in annotations is desired, check the "Scale Text" box in the rescale dialog. This is often a good choice because the text rescales and maintains relative positions. You may want to uncheck the box in future scale operations that do not involve VPs. Also, use caution in that dialog, regarding the Scale Entire Drawing box. I generally want that one unchecked. -B
  12. Couple ways: 1 Select the ViewPort OIP>Scale menu>adjust the scale you might then also need to edit annotations to adjust the text size and placement 2 select the VP Group the VP Modify menu>Scale Objects>choose a scale factor to rescale the VP This method scales the annotations, including the text. Which means the text may have unusual font size hth -B
  13. I think I have experienced similar -perhaps especially with materials. A known resource not discoverable in libraries or search. My workaround is to open a file containing said resource - sometimes I remember these things. The resource becomes available and discoverable during remainder of session, even after the containing file is closed. I chalked it up to my klutziness with the RM. Could it be possible that it’s not my fault for once?!!! -B
  14. That should be the goal! I think new, better tech for render, redraw general navigation is not same as ditching CAD. Instead it is substituting tools for something (new CAD environment) that works better in some way, or is more satisfying for designer, or for client, or for govt review, or for project archiving and future mods. Our current software is not fully embracing the available possibilities. But I think it should and wish it would. Or at least should demonstrably move in that direction. We interrupt this program to expand my critique of AEC vs gaming. As usual, I could be misinformed: AEC will generally (always?) strive to represent the entire context correctly, eg for build or matching existing, etc. In the gaming environment, a stairway or other element is siloed. No need to provide correct number of steps or tread width or correct height between floors or railings spec’d to local codes or door/landing config or anything else except to provide context for the gaming plot conditions in the stairway. Likewise if the game plot transitions from stair through a door to a hall or room, no concern for precise elevation from ground or horizontal position of that door/hall/room relative to other out of frame or out of scene elements. Which is a long winded way of saying that in gaming you can just make stuff up to suit the plot. Gotta say that it is effective and often fun/rewarding for both game designer and the gamer, but done with different rigor and intent from AEC. We return you now to the boss level of Soulblighter. -B
  15. Export CAD to gaming render was my assumption, but DC seems to suggest CAD not needed and sheets not needed. That the model somehow emerges without CAD and the info (dims, notes, ????) oft presented on sheets is instead is accessed in the rendered/ animated view. DC is a Master of Models so knows whereof he speaks. And is justifiably critical of sheets, tyranny is his word. I’m all for adopting the power and efficiency of the gaming environment, but what is the path to design at detail required for permit? Maybe it’s already in place without familiar CAD? -B
  16. Not a bad premise that gaming engines are future of design via realtime rendered views and animation. And, wonderful rendering it is! But, I think at this time, the renders, however fast and responsive, are not replacement for CAD. (guessing, here - set me straight). If I understand the narration, scenes in the demos make a compromise with the vertex/facet count - front focus items have wonderful detail, distant items do not, until accessed via zoom or approach. All great for realtime render OF THE VISBLE SURFACES. I think the difference is that CAD design is typically immersed in, and is expected to represent, the surface plus everything else beyond/below/through. Eg Buildings have complicated, data rich design for window, stair, rail, door, slab, roof structure, component walls, and esp material. Landscape has below grade items, irrigation paths and nodes, specifics of plant dispersion/type with data for nomenclature, price, etc. Lighting and event anticipate power usage, specifics of truss connections and loads, pricing, etc. Somehow, I don't think the demos include all that data and structure beyond the visible surfaces in the frame. Or, maybe it is there, or could be easily added and I'm just a skeptic with no knowledge or imagination. Who knows? -B
  17. Hi, Bruce! I think you need to refresh libraries in the Resource Manager. Click the Resource Manager gear icon to reveal the menu with library choices. -B
  18. Welcome to the Forum @Darren Hoekstra! Did you make all the columns populate? Here are some basics from my tests for anyone following along: Verify that Site Model (DTM) has a color fill, as noted by @Darren Hoekstra Assign colors to the slope ranges on the DTM - Select the DTM, Click the Settings button in OIP, at bottom left click the Graphics Properties, near top of this dialog click Site Analysis. In this dialog, assign slope ranges and colors. Exit the dialogs. With Site Model selected, Click open the 2d and 3d Style menus and choose one of the colored slope options in each. Style menus are near top of OIP. Update the Site Model after each change. If worksheet exists, Recalc the worksheet. It should populate according to the DTM exist/proposed status. Or create new worksheet via Tools>Reports>Preconfigured Reports>Site Slope Analysis Notes/issues: The worksheet reports areas in sq mm, not drawing units. If needed, paste a conversion factor in column heading, such as: ='Site Model Slope Analysis'.'Projected Area'/92903.04 to report Sq Ft. Click the green checkmark to accept the conversion factor. The worksheet seems to populate only the projected areas (plan projection). Let us know if you get the actual 3d sloped surface areas! Otherwise, some math is needed for the surface areas. The worksheet seems to populate either the exist OR the proposed portions, but not both at once. To control this, select the Site Model and toggle the 2d status, eg from Existing to Proposed. Each toggle, update the Site and Recalc the worksheet. -B
  19. Welcome to the forum! Try the Flip button in the OIP. Select the Door in Wall. Each click of the Flip button rotates the door swing 1/4 turn in the wall. I think you will need 3 clicks. Post back as needed. -B
  20. @RachelGarcia Welcome to the forum! Attached is a v2022 file with a curtain in two positions - closed and half open. In top view, draw a wavy polyline. eg with the Bezier or Cubic Spline mode. Use guide objects as needed. Convert to NURBS Duplicate and move z to top elevation Loft Surface between the two NURBS curves. Add fill to the resulting NURBS Surface (eg white) Apply texture. Note: Edit the texture to adjust the size (width) equal to the portion of curtain visible from auditorium. If partially open curtain needed, duplicate the NURBS curve and note the Perimeter length in OIP. Adjust width to cover desired portion of the proscenium arch. Adjust (top plan) height of NURBS until Perimeter length matches the original NURBS Perimeter. Loft as above and apply texture. Deeper folds may require switching texture type from Plane to Surface UV. Post back if more help needed. -B Curtain.vwx
  21. Is this corrected in SP2? Appeal for anyone on SP2 - please test text in HL SP2. I didn’t yet update because issues causing some users to move back down to SP1.1 -B
  22. Confirming for v2022, 2d and 3d- In Design Layer views (except Top/Plan), Dimensions and text objects drawn on Design layer render blank in Hidden Line and Dashed Hidden Line. Dimension linework renders properly, but the dim text, leaders, trailers, notes are hidden. They display during Flyover and flash on at start of rerender. This obtains for text/dim objects on both Layer Plane and on 3d planes. The HL render options include option for Display Text and Markers. Toggle this option has no effect. Workaround (very strange) Change render to Dashed Hidden Line . Result - dim & text render blank here. But never fear! Change back to Hidden Line and the dims/text/markers display as expected. All good (change flyover, zoom, etc) until rerender in HL. Test - Change render to Shade or other, and back to HL. Result is hidden text. Change to Dashed HL, then back to HL displays the text. I have no workaround to make the dims/text display in Dashed HL 3d views. Extending - Design layer Dims and text displayed in Sheet Layer Viewport display as expected if VP is rendered HL. Option (OIP) for Display Text and Markers functions as expected - Toggle it off, the dimension text, markers and text objects are hidden. Dimension linework remains visible in either state of the option. Bug, me thinks. Seems kinda basic, but I don't recall seeing earlier report. -B
  23. If everything is 2d, colors should show in the VP Several things to explore: The VP should be rendered in a mode that will show 2d colors, eg Wire Frame or Shade (with colors enabled) or several Renderworks options. This view might be rendered in Hidden Line? The VP might be in Black and White Only mode which would affect the 2d component of a Material. Switch this on/off via OIP Advanced Settings (button near bottom of the OIP). A VP can have color fill if rendered in Wire Frame. To test, select the VP and check the fill status in attribute palette. If transparent background is desired, set the VP fill to None. VPs can be stacked, eg duplicates of a VP or other VPs or other objects drawn on the sheet can be seen through transparent areas. Use the Send Front/Back commands to move objects up or down in the stack. Looks like the VP is cropped to hide the walls at edge. If desired edit to enlarge the crop object - right click the VP, choose Edit Crop. hth -B
  24. A texture is good because it actually wraps without distortion, but bad because is pixel’s rather than vectors, and because scale is iffy. The Project tool puts vectors on the surface, but distorts because the projection is perpendicular to working plane. If working with cylinders, one workaround without distortion is to create a rectangle of same dimension as the cylinder surface (or extract and unfold the cylinder surface), draw the graphic, clip graphic into the rectangle, and convert to NURBS. Bend into cylinder with the Deform Tool. Shell to give thickness or Align onto the source cylinder. note: the bend function does not like to make a full cylinder, so if Bend fails, split things into segments or bend shy of the full diameter by a minuscule amount. -B
  25. I acted on a weird thought about this. It's the old waiting for better specs story. For some reason, I seem to be on Apple's 1st gen schedule. (Bondi Blue iMac, 16" lamp base iMac, 1st gen 17" MBP, etc). My 2014 MBP is showing limitations and might not pass the near future vwx releases. I ordered a 16"MBPmax (32 ram). Although my expected use is with small to medium files and only some rendering, I want to stay within base requirements for next few vwx and apple releases.. Buuut, this is another 1st gen product. New chips, new battery, etc may bring some recalls. All those other 1st gens were quickly followed by BIG improvements at similar pricing. The candy iMacs starting following year were much higher spec than the Bondi, the #2 lamp base had larger screen - blah blah blah. 3rd and 4th gens were typically smaller steps. Soooo, here's the weird part. Resale after 1st year of my 1st gen max might contribute 50% or more toward purchase of much better 2nd gen. I could upgrade right away if I really need it - not so much after couple years. -B
  • Create New...