CipesDesign

I hope I can say this without seeming to be judgmental, or eliciting that from others... VW's is not SU, and neither is a pencil (although I have sometimes called VW's a $2000 pencil). It appears that in your preferred process SU will be a more efficient tool for early stage idea modeling. But I still think you might be missing the dynamic beauty of working with simple walls, floors and roofs. And especially as these can then be retained and refined over the course of the design development (and working drawings). To further explain my process: I generally start with 2d shapes as definers of spaces, then use them as (actually aligned) guides for placement of walls. I duplicate walls a lot, then drag, rotate, etc. This is very fast (at least for me) and allows me to pretty quickly see the building take shape in 3d. Of course VW's also has the ability to use "Spaces" or "Polygons" from which to directly create walls. While I'm sure some users like this, it's not quite tactile or free enough for me... Every tool forces us to use it a certain way. Have you ever tried to use the back of a screw driver as a hammer? Or tried to cut a steak with a spoon? VW's and SU are both intended as design tools, but they come at things from opposite sides of the problem. I would challenge you (and others) to spend one morning, or whatever, using simple walls, floors and roofs to rough out early concepts. Just for kicks. Or just continue to use both tools and be happy that we have a choice. Ultimately what I think is that VW's will never be "like SU" because its basic premise and structure are not not that. And visa-versa.

Again very grateful to be a one-man shop. Of course it has its downsides too. But determining my own workflow is so nice...

I also noticed that in the original screen shots "Existing Only" was checked in 3d Display. Try changing that to Proposed and then Update the Site Model.

Unfortunately it is not possible for a wall feature to go all the way to the end, or to wrap corners. The initial concept of wall features is amazing, but this (meh implementation) pretty much kills it for me. I have filed numerous requests for this to be fixed, but so far it hasn't happened. I'm assuming that this is a difficult programming problem because it has been such a long-standing issue (since wall features were first introduced). But I am ever hopeful that someday this will work as expected.

I especially like the horse!

I always work with very simple un-styled walls. I do usually define Exterior and Interior, both by thickness and textures. I can move, duplicate, rotate, etc. very quickly. Walls with components have always been too complicated (and require too much upkeep) for me. And in reality, the plan view of the final CD's looks just like that. The sections are where I go to define actual assemblies, and I generally draft all that "manually" over a section VP. The elevations can be almost entirely created from a simple model like this...

I'm not sure I understand your reason for not using Walls, Roofs, Floors, etc in the first place. Is it because they don't feel "free" enough, like hand sketching?? Or is there another reason?

Haven't tried, but I doubt it. Try using Floors.

I agree that all the stair tools have their limits (and that they can be really frustrating). FWIW I 'm pretty sure the older tool is still there and you can add it to your workspace via the workspace editor...

That's cool. But how would you build them?? Just curious.

rDesign, YES! That's the answer. Christiaan was kind enough to send me the file. I just increased the Open GL detail to Very High and the curb smooths out very nicely. Not perfect, but far, far better.

Very nice Wes! Small note, if desired you could use spacers between the boxes, regaining the ability to open all drawers...

Yeah, that's pretty ugly. I'd be happy to have a look at the file, if possible. Not sure I can diagnose without actual hands-on. Not sure if I can diagnose at all, but willing to try.

I would use the cabinet plug ins, but not even try to insert them into walls. I would place them manually, very carefully. If you consider how it will be done in the real world, chances are very good that normal rectangular boxes will be used (unless you have a really huge budget). So I would pretend to be a cabinet installer right in VW's World.

As a note, the 2d Poly to 3d Contour command will begin with the first created (or first placed, or pasted) Poly and proceed in order of creation. There are a few ways to re-order the Polys, and if they are not correctly ordered it can cause headaches. I often use data from surveyors, usually in the form of 2d Polys. Since most of the sites I work on are fairly small, it's not a big deal to convert to 3d Polys and then manually assign Z values to each (and double check!). Then, I use the Create Site Model, as Alan describes.

Use Site Modifiers. Look first in VW's HELP for basic procedures, then ask followups here.

Here's how I would attack it (realizing that this is way beyond the capabilities of any single tool or object). The uppermost form is is (or looks like) a simple low slope hip roof. This is easy with the Create Roof command. The bearing height will take some fiddling, and the chimney would be added later. The main form that bears at the plate can be made by starting with Create Roof using very steep slope (20:12 ?), then Ungroup to get four Roof Faces, then go to Top/Plan and draw a rectangle of the correct size and centered on the center of the Roof Faces' point of intersection, then use that Rectangle to Clip Surface from the Roof Faces (in other words, you just cut a giant square hole in the really steep roof). For the flared bottom I would use (or at least start with) an Extrude Along Path. And for each of the dormers I would use three Walls and two Roof Faces. Texture (mis)alignment might be interesting and take a little fiddling. Let us know how it works out!

I would duplicate the window(s), place in Front View, then Convert To Group (or convert to polygons).

Oh yeah. That's cool geometry! Almost the same as using a parallelogram to calculate the set and drift of current in navigation.

Hi Alan, Very nice little trick with the 3d Poly. Why didn't I think of that?!?. Just FYI, and in case you were not aware, you can use Clip/Add Surface on a Roof Face (or Floor, Extrude, etc.) without double clicking in to the parent shape. Saves a bunch of clicks. Thanks again for the video ;-)

There are probably a few ways to deal with this, but for me (and old school kinda guy) Roof Faces are best dealt with by using the Add Surface and Clip Surface commands (which must be done in Top /Plan View). If the Roof Faces are the same pitch and bear at the same height, then it's all 45º angles. But when you have different pitches and/or different plate heights it gets a little tricky. There are two ways I know of to attack these problems: one is by using trigonometry. Yuck (personal opinion). The other is by using simple geometry (i.e.: measuring distances and applying to Roof Faces) Yay. In order to measure the distances, go to a straight-on Side (or whatever) View, in Wireframe, and set your prefs for Screen Plane (this will be temporary). You might also want to apply a temporary color to the particular Roof Face(s) you need to measure to make it easier to find (it can be really hard to see what's what in wireframe). So for example, pull a line from the end of the ridge to where it needs to intersect/touch. Remember the dimension(s). Go back to Top/Plan View and using the "magic number(s)" that you just discovered, draw a polygon (or rectangle, or parallelogram) and then use Add Surface or Subtract Surface. Don't be afraid, just make sure you have at least 20 Undo's set ;-) Once you do it a few times it'll become second nature. I hope that helps.

What about the creation of Extrudes that are extruded in views other than Top or Top/Plan. EG: the profile of a rafter (or roof truss) that becomes the 3d rafter. A very powerful feature! I'm not sure (I'll need to think about it) if I want those to have solid fill in their primal view. However I would want to see solid fill for rafters in Top/Plan view, even it they were created by extruding from a Front or Side view. Interesting.

I like it. It's a little bit like Contours from Polys (in Site Modeling). It makes logical sense.

Haha! I am also super old-school about sections. I use the Section VP as a guideline, then detail (pretty heavily) in the annotations. That way I can get the graphics just the way I like. Also I find the process very satisfying.

Pete, I agree 100%. But this is mostly about flawed - and lazy- UI Design, not any one or group of parametric objects. I absolutely detest deep (multi layered) dialogs with lists. It's insulting and a total time suck (especially when one does not find what one is searching for within!). I have always said so. I love the general concept of "sketch it in plan" then "evolve it" in 3d (the same could be true from Elevation or Section to 3d). What is interesting is that I often do just that, with window sills being the perfect example. I can draw the sectional profile and extrude so much faster than the &^%$ dialog (one of the worst in VW's). So that is often what I do. The huge bummer is that the sill is not attached to the window!! I always hope the engineers are paying attention to these sorts of postings!!