Jump to content

Art V

Member
  • Posts

    2,343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Art V

  1. Yes I get the gist, and it is one way of doing things. Do you need cut and fill calculations as well or is it just for visual purposes? If the latter then you might as well stick with the common way of setting the site model elevations and set your platforms at the top level, that way you can work from the ground up with positive values, which may be easier to work with assuming there are other items that reside on the ground. If you need cut and fill calculations, it is possible to use objects on other layers as site modifiers for your DTM so you can put your DTM on one layer and all your other stuff on another layer at the topmost elevation or any other elevation you want inbetween 0 and the topmost elevation if you don't go for the highest point in the terrain.
  2. Phil, or anyone else interested, attached is an example file showing the grid elevation in a worksheet with sample elevations. The sample elevations in the worksheet have been used as input in the same order after selecting Landmark>Survey Input>Grid Method Entry and setting the number of rows and columsn to 5 each with a grid size of 5. After typing in all the numbers as per worksheet you get the loci as shown underneath the worksheet. This set of loci was then copied to the right and then the loci were selected and then from the menus Landmark>Create Site Model was selected. After switching to a 3D view you should get a 3D Mesh Solid with contours shown as per settings in either the Model Settings of the Object Info Palette. Vectorworks will assume your base level is 0 so in 3D the lowest part of the site model will be at 0m. If you want to change this you need to either correct the elevations for the desired result and change the DTM's elevation for graphical purposes or use site modifiers.
  3. In the site model settings or through the object info palette you can change the 3D view to solid mesh, this should give you what you are looking for (assuming there is a "0" elevation in the model, if not you may need to add this to your data). The image below gives you an idea of how it would look like (just typed in some random data for a 4x5 grid of 5m)
  4. Tim, Thanks for the tip, just took a look at their website and I'll try it out. It will probably be better than using a text editor to split up the point cloud file. Especially the option to modify (or add?) colours is very welcome.
  5. In the past I had lots of problems with hidden line renders, but hardly with other types of renders. The models where I tried to use it were relatively large with quite a few objects covering each other so that did contribute to it, but I just couldn't get it to work beyond really simple 3D models at the time. It is better in 2016 though, assuming you have that version. Is your model a relatively simple one or a complex one?
  6. Not sure if it could be done with a custom script, but an option could be to export all images to be into a single PDF and then from the PDF software export all pages to individual images (with crop to extent if available), assuming you have PDF editing software (e.g. Bluebeam or the full Adobe Acrobat etc.)
  7. Not yet, I have requested hierarchical layers (similar to hierarchical classes) through my local distributor. Maybe you could do the same, the more people requesting something like this the better the chance for it to be implemented. A temporary workaround could be using saved views, that way you can quickly turn sets of layers (and classes) on and off, similar to layer states in AutoCAD
  8. You may also want to check your export setting for 3D PDF's. There is an option to enable/disable double side faces for rendering during export. When disabled and the PDF viewer does not have double side faces rendering enabled then geometry will not always look as expected depending on the view angle etc. and in some cases it may look as if the object is not present until you switch on the double face rendering in the PDF viewer.
  9. It seems that something is not working properly with lofts at times, recently I have been working on a ship hull and could only make it look proper by splitting up the geometry. Even then there were some wrinkles, fortunately at the bottom so invisible, but the geometry was not that difficult and all NURBS were having the same direction etc. etc. So +1 to all of the above suggestions from me as well. And I'm impressed too, even saved this topic as a bookmark for future reference.
  10. Jan Willem, Regarding using DWG as import/export, there is a more than average chance that it will get converted into meshes, especially with older versions of the DWG format. What you could try to improve the quality of the meshes is putting the file through Meshlab http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/ It allows you to clean up the meshes and re-export into (other) formats that Vectorworks can handle. It may not be in time for your current project but perhaps for your next project it may be worth trying out.
  11. Marissa, Thanks for the clarification, I'll start experimenting to get a feeling for the basics as without that there won't be much progress on my side for enhancements and may come back to you later for avoiding the use of named objects.
  12. Marissa, The marionette script worked after updating the plugin. Based on your comments and after looking at the nodes I get the impression the script is using two predefined named objects (lenght/height) and then creates the composed object based on the layers they are residing on. Moving the object to a different layers breaks the object? Because I would need multiple variants of this item, with different sized on either the same layer or different layers this might be an issue or is there a way to work around that? The case that caused the question for which you created this marionette script is using 50 design layer of which approx. 35-40 would use multiple versions of this object. So I would like to have an idea of the potential pitfalls if possible. At least I have now an idea how to get started and will do some experimenting later this week to see if I can get something that is close to what I would like it to be.
  13. No problem, updating did solve the issue, the script worked after that. I'll be contacting you later this week about the plugin with regard to the symbol objects.
  14. Yes, in theory Vectorworks works faster if the drawing is close® to 0,0 (as internal origin.) In reality you will not notice much of a slow down for Vectorworks itself if it is at georeferenced coordinates (e.g. in UTM coordinate system this is around 500km east of the origin and up to a few thousand kilometers north of the origin). Only when you are having tons of objects or large 3D models at coordinates you may start to notice a slowdown. The one slowdown you may notice is that you may end up on the page area and then have to move back to the actual drawing, so it would be a good idea to create a saved view for that. Also, when working with georeferenced drawings, please leave all origins and the page area at the internal origin of the document. It will save you from headaches in the long run. That being said, one advice that you should preferably stick to no matter what ... if you have to work at coordinates and they are georeferenced then by all means use that georeference and do not move the drawing to 0,0 as this may introduce all kinds of errors which you don't want if accuracy is important. For example, the UTM zones are 6 degrees in longitude wide, with the central meridian in the middle of the zone. Because of the projection, the further away you get from the central meridian the more distortion there will be. Moving the drawing closer to the internal origin will get you in that distorted area and upon reprojection things may start to look different from what you intended. So either don't use georeference at all or stick to it and work at proper coordinates. If you need to do a transformation (conversion) from one projected coordinate system into another, consult a geodesist for the proper conversion if possible or have it checked by a geodesist just to be sure. (the best way would be to have the client supply the data in the proper format so that is is their responsibility to get it right). There is often more than one way to do a transformation and you definitely don't want to use the wrong one.
  15. Regarding the NURBS result, I just did a quick test. A DWG file with two splines, one having an elevation (Z-value) of 3 and one with no elevation assigned was imported into Vectorworks 2016 and 2015. When imported with the 2D and 3D setting, both lines got imported as 2D polylines, when imported with the All 3D setting both lines got imported as NURBS. If there was something new to cause the NURBS it was already introduced in 2015. Regarding using GIS software to create contours... most GIS software use polylines/polygons by default, especially when exporting to Shape files. Going this route may avoid clipping/jaggy contours from any conversion to polygons/3D polygons and the subsequent need to reduce the number of control points with again possible "overcompensation"/clipping of the contour. In the other thread it was not clear how the original contours were generated, but GIS software can possibly do a better job in generating (more usable) contours than either Vectorworks or manual drafting. Regarding projection, yes GIS contours are georeferenced. Unless I am mistaken Vectorworks files are basically georeferenced too using plate carree projection as default, so if you would use that as the projection in your GIS software and then export as shape file and also import a dwg with the same contours (and align the dwg import to the internal origin) then they should overlap. (Assuming you are using correct units for both) In my case whenever I need a site model then the document I am using it for is georeferenced anyway so for me it is sort of a non-issue.
  16. Thanks, for the link, it happens to be the mentioned plugin issue. (I still have an older version installed from testing before deciding on a purchase). I'll update the plugin later and then try again.
  17. Yes, it can be changed after import, but it would be better if there was an option to ignore the line width of (poly)lines in imported documents or to set it to a specified line width if it exceeds a threshold.
  18. Yes, minimum specs often seem to be the absolute minimum rather than usable minimum, but my experience is that it also depends on the software itself. In Vectorworks' case it appears to be an efficiency issue across the board regardless of specs as it used to slow down a lot faster than other CAD software I am using. It has improved a bit over the years but there is still room for considerably more improvement. (It's on my wish list) In this case I meant that the distance between the two ends of a single point cloud's extremes may be 300m. The actual location can be several hundreds of kilometres away from the 0,0 in the document as it the point cloud is georeferenced to a national grid.
  19. Marissa, Thanks for the code, I tried running it and got the error as per attached image
  20. I got similar results, though I converted the 3D NURBS to 3D polygons first and then did a compose though the end result is most likely the same. Except that I noticed that if you select to show 3D contours and have the site model displayed as a 3D mesh it shows some merged areas based on the shown contours. When you overlay the original contours than some loops were cut off based on those contours and some were merged so I would thoroughly check the site model for any of the critical areas to find out if that happened or not.
  21. It depends, in AutoCAD you have two 2D polyline commands - pline; which generates 2d polylines that can consist of straight line segments and/or arcs. These can be converted into splines afterwards if needed. - spline (smooth polyline); the equivalvent of bezier curve polylines in VW. Then there is the 3Dpoly for 3d polylines/polygons. 3D splines are basically similar to NURBS in Vectorworks, but 3D in AutoCAD is either solid or mesh, I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a NURBS surface in AutoCAD, though I do most of my 3D in Vectorworks now so I'm not 100% sure about NURBS in AutoCAD without looking up.
  22. Actually, the lines are not polylines but Splines, which are similar to bezier curves. (polyines in AutoCAD are created by using the pline command, they can be smoothed afterwards and then become splines. Splines are created by using the spline command) Because these splines are also 3D they are imported as NURBS.
  23. Yes, that is exactly what I meant. When working in wireframe I keep running into the issue whether some objects of different shape do line up at their actual edges or not, e.g. with a cone and a cylinder where the cone base seems to have a larger radius than the cylinder because their outermost edges show differently in wireframe but it is ok in OpenGL mode.
  24. Last week I went to the Vectorworks user day over here and got a presentation on Marionette. It seems it will be able to do what I want for not (relatively simple stuff) but I do have a question regarding layer height use. For example, I have a structure of multiple levels with a floor on each level supported by beams. The beams are visually residing on the layer underneath but I would like them to be on the layer of the floor it is supporting, so it should have a negative extrude all the way down to the floor level of the layer underneath. That way when I switch a layer off the supporting beams will not show up on the layer underneath. Is marionette capable of "reading" the height difference between two layers and calculate the required negative extrusion?
  25. Thanks for the info. I guess I'll just have to try and figure out. The person who suggested splitting up the point cloud ended up with 6 point cloud objects of 35 million points each and it seemed to work trouble free for him. Just to make sure regarding the point cloud ends, if in a single point cloud object one cloud half is on one end and the other half of the points is e.g. 300 m away would this make a difference compared to both halves being next to each other with no separation distance or will it not make much difference because it are only the points that matter?
×
×
  • Create New...