Jump to content

Eric Gilbey, PLA

Vectorworks, Inc Employee
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Eric Gilbey, PLA

  1. Eric, Not sure if you have shared this file with Vlado and/or tech support, but it would be good to have the file to either solve the issue in the file, or file a performance bug to solve this for future large projects.
  2. You do not need to use duplicate along a path. The plant object has its own "along path" configuration, which you can set in the Object Information Palette (OIP) or in its plant settings when the plant grouping is selected. It seems to be set to horizontal now, but can be set to along path or randomly rotated. You want it set to along path to achieve the look you are seeking.
  3. @lisagIf you choose the 3D polygon representation of the site model, then export the file to DWG, it will export the 3D contours as 3D polygons in DWG format.
  4. OK...so it sounds like you are at the threshold of "either/or". Unless @techsupporthas a different suggestion. I'm not sure what else to suggest than simplification or removing every other minor interval contours, since the site model will interpolate them anyways. Perhaps the distance set in simplification could be as small as you can see a noticeable easing of articulation (ever so subtle) maybe the overlapping contours might not be as prolific and you can amend and convert to see if you have success? Using imperial, I've noticed that if 1 foot used as my distance is simplifying too drastically, I might try 3 inches (1/4 of the original simplification)...still get simplification but not as drastic. In metric terms, perhaps its by 10 or 20 cm? Don't know what the level of detail is...but in the effort you are attempting, it does not sound like you are left with too many choices in balancing the geometry/performance. Perhaps tech support may have other suggestions?
  5. Hi Lisa, Though my first reaction was to simplify polygons, which you prefer not to do, I'm thinking of the Survey Input option to change 3D Polys to 3D Loci...wondering if the use of just points, and not processing the vertices and lines, would make enough of a difference in how it processes the 3D geometry. Regards, Eric
  6. @ericjhbergI apologize that the notification for Landmark conversations was broken, and I did not realize this until I noticed my notifications alert had your mention in this. After reading through the chain, here, I'd also say your original statement didn't seem so much a question as much as a statement of how you manager the multiple pipe layout in runs. Because each pipe now carries the size/flow data, it would need to be a bit more finessed, since the length of pipe (especially with a 1-2' offset here and there) could throw off the flow numbers. I'm going to share your issue with our development team and see what we can do to account for multiple pipes in a run, while graphically not losing the integrity of the irrigation layout. Eric...or anyone else, if you have specific recommendations for how this should look and act, please share them with me, directly in this discussion, to keep the topic going.
  7. Tamsin, hopefully Craig will correct me if I'm wrong, but from the title of his post and the descriptions he's making, I didn't think the pad modifier was it since it wouldn't have followed the surface...it would have changed the surface, and since it wouldn't slope, that usually is not preferred.
  8. Craig,Then the settings should not be set as a slab, but should be set as a texture bed modifier. This will not modify the terrain, but it will then map the texture to the terrain. In order for the same area to be regraded, you will have to have a site modifier in the same place "telling" it how to regrade the proposed site model. The the hardscape set to be a texture bed modifier will be shown in the rendered site model, following the proposed terrain.
  9. Craig, A few things may be worth checking...in the hardscape settings, does the hardscape have a class set for the main area? In the show 3D, does it reflect by class, or is another texture picked? If it is by class, does the class have the texture picked in the other "tab" (i.e. Walls, Roofs, Other). In the Site model, is it set to show the proposed site model in 3D? Do you have it set to allow only modifiers for the same layer as the site model? (if so, is the hardscape on the same layer?) the other choices would have made it more apt to show, if they were visible.
  10. Jessyca, Once you have imported the SHP files, do a fit to objects and see what it shows. Sometimes when the files come in, they are at a far different scale than you might already be in that you may need to "back-up" to see what all mat have been brought in.
  11. It looks as though you did not place the plants in a group, rather placed them individually. Choose the modes that follow the single plant mode and the massing should occur and the shadows will too. You do not have to check the mass plants in the definition...but the enable 2D plant rendering does need to be checked in the object information palette.
  12. Outlander, Tamsin is right...you should watch the webinar and it should be working. Let us know what version you are using...each year, the improvements to the site model make some difference to how accurate it becomes. I have had success using 3D polygons as site modifiers so long as they are on the Site-DTM-Modifier class (also same Design Layer as the Site Model) and are surrounded by a Boundary (Fence in previous versions).
  13. Steelbreeze, You can find hints like Cipes mentioned at the Knowledgebase, particularly the online video library. I demonstrated a tip similar to the one Cipes mentioned in our Tips and Tricks for VW Landmark 2010, with the setting a chord depth. Check out this link to see it in action http://download2cf.nemetschek.net/www_movies/2010/Tips&Tricks_Land2010.mov Knowledgebase can be found here http://kbase.vectorworks.net/ Part of the Knowledgebase is the Online Video Library found here http://kbase.vectorworks.net/categories/Videos/ I too did not have my responses in this forum tied to my emails before...but now I do...so now if someone responds or even leaves a message for me, it lets me know by email. Keep on the forum and post as you have questions...glad to have you as a part of the community. -Eric
  14. Well, in his question about creating a hatch, this would be perceivably a collection of linework that gets repeated within a shape. The idea of arbitrariness is forced into the shapes and orientation of the shapes so that when it is repeated, it is not too obvious that it is being tiled. Mikael, does this meet your request for creating your own hatches?
  15. Here are some screen shots...one of the tile being created (go to resource browser>right click>create a new resource>Tile Then it takes you to the tile edit mode. (I brought a screen shot of the sample in and traced it then gave the clouds a green line and the hatches a brown line. The other screen shot shows the tile as a resource that can then be dragged into the shape. The third screen shot shows the shape with the tile fill. Not to bad, once you see it in a large bed. Of course, you can give the tile a fill color as well.
  16. Actually this can be done with the new tiling feature in 2011. You can create this layout by creating a tile and see it arrayed in the shape you are specifying.
  17. What Mr. Cipes brings up is a crucial point..especially if you have several rafters and they all have a ornamental cut in the end...say you decide to change one...well instead of starting over or editing them all individually the symbol method makes this much faster. You should consider this as well for the posts...if they have similar bases or attachment methods...the symbol is the way to go. One other thing....if you plan to quantify the lumber needed for this pergola, you can get linear feet calculations by creating the rafters, joists, beams and posts as an extrude along a path (i.e. 2x6 (1.5"x5.5") rectangle extruded along the line drawn at the length of the rafter. This gets linear feet calculations where a simple extrude or push/pull would not.
  18. Used to be that would just send the image on the screen to print...now once you do this, you may need to go into raster enhancement program (usually Paint is loaded on your PC for free) and then choose edit paste (from clipboard?) and voila...your screen capture should show up and you can save as an image file.
  19. Mark, I did this not long after starting with Vectorworks 2008, so it isn't new...but easier with the enhanced 2D/3D editing. In a Side view, choose the rotate tool in the basic tool set and pick the bottom corner of the rafter that will be higher (as your pivot point). Then the next click would be the current horizontal orientation. The third click becomes the new angle in positioning the rafter that will become lower. You may want to offset a surface to represent the desired lower height, so when you rotate the rafter, you can identify where it needs to be placed. If the higher end of the rafter needs to be moved, I would do that by a 3D move first then do the rotate. You can do this function with all of the rafters or move one and then duplicate array to provide the set of rafters.
  20. There is an interesting dynamic on this community forum. It is intended to be a site where users, and prospects, seek help/support from each other. This is not intended to be another branch of tech support managed by Nemetschek Vectorworks, but could actually be a source of support for users who want to hear from others how they went about accomplishing "such and such" functionality. Bryan and I have traded few comments back and forth here and via email, and I'd like all to know that I do watch these forum...a lot more frequently then when I started at Nemetschek Vectorworks. When you get ideas for tools and features, you should certainly make them known formally in the wish list forum, or even better in the bug submit. If you only knew how many features have been requested of the developers...or let me say it this way, if you only know how many features I alone have put forth towards the developers . I don't say this lightly, because I do have a voice in what development does occur and as a landscape architect, I know how the tools are supposed to work...but I am one of many that the developers listen to...our distributors worldwide contribute to the wishlist and this is why I say, "if you only knew". But, do not let that stop you...keep the wishes coming! One other thing...the free resources in training are there for Vectorworks, whether in the tutorials, the webinars, the knowledgebase, the online video library, etc. are there for your use...and like the features, let us know the tutorials you wish we had, as we are always developing them as well. I would be happy to work on more informative webinars showcasing the functionality of the software. Get involved with your local user groups, if you have not already, as that is another free resource to tap into, of local professionals using the software, who can also bend our ear for just such webinars...happens quite frequently, actually. We are doing a webinar tomorrow on how a Landmark Beta Tester is using 2011 in her workflows at 2pm Eastern. https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/756579883
  21. Bryan, These are the tools I emailed you about earlier...some very nice offerings.
  22. Gilly, Bryan is right...you need the Existing Tree Tool from 2011. It will do exactly what you want, including the tree protection zone (also changeable). The Plant Objects you are using from Vw 2008 can only be changed within their 2D edit mode and you would have to make sure you had a separate symbol for each. The existing tree tool is intended for trees with irregular canopies and provides a 3D representation of them too. http://download2.nemetschek.net/www_movies/2011/new_features/Existing-tree-tool.mov
  23. Until we have the ability to separate cut/fill calcs by boundaries, you can now (with 2011) get a volume report that actually puts the volume change right on each facet...so you would need to see the facets involved with the separate areas and gather the volume changes for those facets. If they are small facets and many, it would be a chore...but the alternative would be to have separate site models with site modifiers in the specific areas per site model.
  24. I'll suggest a possible workflow and if someone else has a better alternative, let us know. When you create your existing surface Site Model (DTM), create the proposed bottom of the basin as a pad with a flat (non sloped surface). Then create what you would expect to be the top of basin as a pad at that elevation. But, when making that top of basin elevation, have it be a modifier for the existing dtm. You can then do your cut and fill calculations from the updated proposed dtm, and see what it gives.
  25. The preview actually happens on the preference box. I've found that preview to be very helpful, especially when deciding if the steps are too long/short or overkill.
  • Create New...