Creating a planar pad from grade limits - but Planar Pads without elevation?

[aage.langedrag]

Great feature but can't get it to work.

@Katarina Ollikainen

@Tamsin Slatter @Tony Kostreski

If I understand this function correctly I should be able to set a Grade Limits and automatically create a Planar Pad based on mass balance inside the Grade Limits and definition for Batter slope. I then expect my Planar Pad to also get a height that is correct, an elevation. It looks correct in 2D plan but Planar Pad have elevation 0. Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong.

See also the attached file and film that shows the problem.

Link to the description in Vectorworks 2023 Help.

https://app-help.vectorworks.net/2023/eng/VW2023_Guide/SiteModel1/Creating_a_planar_pad_from_grade_limits.htm?rhmapfs=true

Creating a planar pad from grade limits - v2024.vwx

Edited November 3, 2023 by aage.langedrag

[JonKoch]

I think you just have to set the elevation to where you want it relative to the site model and then update the site model to see your pad with the batter on it. Whether it is in the ground or above grade (a plateau). Maybe I'm confused as to what you are trying to do. 

 

I did what I explained above and attached your file. 

Creating a planar pad from grade limits - v2024.vwx

[aage.langedrag]

Hi, @JonKoch If I understand this function correctly, I should be able to set out a Grade limits over a Site model, then the function "Creating a planar pad from grade limits" should automatically calculate the outer geometric shape and height so that the mass balance will be equal to zero. I do not expect this to be at sea level as I show in the picture and as you have also achieved as I see it in the model you sent. Have I understood your model correctly?

[JonKoch]

On 11/11/2023 at 2:11 AM, aage.langedrag said:

Hi, @JonKoch If I understand this function correctly, I should be able to set out a Grade limits over a Site model, then the function "Creating a planar pad from grade limits" should automatically calculate the outer geometric shape and height so that the mass balance will be equal to zero. I do not expect this to be at sea level as I show in the picture and as you have also achieved as I see it in the model you sent. Have I understood your model correctly?

I'm not terribly familiar with this tool to be honest so I'm not sure what the exact desired outcome is. Sounds like you are trying to get a pad to start with that balances out the cut and fill of the terrain within the grade limit? Sorry I can't be of more help. 

 

[Poot]

Did you find any solution for this @aage.langedrag?

[aage.langedrag]

Hi @Poot,
No, I have not received feedback on this, but I do not think it is a function that can be used. Based on the feedback in this case Site Modifiers - Batter slope with constant slope I guess I can't trust that this will be correct in this case either. Guess we'll have to wait until we get another function in Vectorworks that works as desired.

[Scott Campbell]

I've talked to @Katarina Ollikainen about this thread today. We hope to be able to get back to you all shortly. Sorry about the delay.

[Katarina Ollikainen]

@Poot, @aage.langedrag, - both Bobi and I have been looking at this today and we've found a bug relating to the new site model system. I'm filing a Jira on it and will update this post when we have a fix.

[kwik]

Hi! While you are at it with a fix for this function @Katarina Ollikainen, it would be great if you also could take a look at some other, related features.

1. The function for Create Grade Limits from Planar Pad…, is just next to this one, and I must say I find it more useful to work with than the one above, as this methode is starting from something that I have designed and making Landmark calculate the correct slope. I is, however, difficult to understand and to have it do the slope that I would like to have. For instance in the example below where the result in some areas is the same offset whether the max slope is set to 1:3 or 1:6.
   
2. The Slope-function in the RoadwayPoly-tool is more dynamic and easier to understand to. In OIP it can be set to Grade Limits Method: Slope and the slope can be set below. Both the RP and the GL is updated if the settings or the geometry is changed.
3. The Pathway Path could be used in a similar way as the RoadwayPoly, to draw a simple path. But it is much more powerful in many ways when it comes to having control of the longitudinal and transverse profiles. This Site Modifier has no connection to a dynamic/fixed Grade Limit, but I have to manually draw one in order to have a slope along the sides of the paths. If I want the sloping to be 1:3, it’s just guesswork to figure out where the Grade Limit should be placed.

There should be some functionality from the RoadwayPoly that could be available for the Path and the Planar Pad as well? It would make things much easier if you could implement that 😊.

Edited January 23 by kwik

[Katarina Ollikainen]

@kwik, You will be happy to know that we're working on all of these functions; however, some will be part of the new road tool and will not be implemented separately until then. We fully agree that these improvements will make it much easier to work with the modifiers - we just want to ensure we're creating a solution that will cover all the intricacies of the roadway as well, otherwise we'll have to reinvent the wheel for that.

 

It is really good to get this feedback, though - it helps us focus on the most important features. Please continue to post ideas and wishes, as well as examples of functions that could be improved. The more detailed, the better.

[Benson Shaw]

Regarding original topic about the Pad from Grade Limits:

 

 

I call this the Move the Mountain to Mohamed Workaround.

 

Problem - Planar Pad from Grade Limits command places pad at z=0 instead of at z=Value where desired slope produces cut/fill balance.

 

Solution - Move the DTM and all extant site mods down (usually) by that z Value, run the command, make adjustments to balance the cut/fill, return DTM and all its modifiers up to original z.

 

Needed:

• 3d Marker at an Anchor point, eg one end of a 3d Poly at one corner of the DTM. 
• Estimate of distance to move the DTM down.
•        Midway between Grade Limits (GL) high and low points. This was only OK.
•        Better estimate uses Center of Mass of the patch of terrain mesh enclosed by the GL.
•                To find this, duplicate the DTM to a blank layer.
•                Crop it to outline of the GL, Ungroup. Delete components except the mesh.
•                Apply Model>Volumetric properties. Note the Center of Mass z value. This is the estimate.  Delete the little patch of mesh.
• Value of desired slope.

 

Process:

• Place the Marker at Anchor point.
• Move the DTM (and Site Mods) straight down by estimate value. Use Move 3d for this.
• Select the GL and run the command.
• Update the DTM. Update the Cut/Fill calculation. Note the cut/fill values.
• Close enough?
•          Select and move everything back up to the anchor point via Move By Points.  Update again.
• Not close? A choice:
•       1.   Adjust the pad up or down, eg 1mm increments. Update each time. Repeat until balance achieved.
•            This also changes the slope (maybe unnoticeable), but easy because DTM and Calc updates both available in Pad OIP.
•       2.  Delete the Pad. Adjust the DTM up/down in increments. Update DTM. Select the GL. Run the command. Update DTM and Calcs.
•            Repeat as needed. Slope refreshes to desired value each time.  Move the assembly up to Anchor Point via Move by Points.

Repeat this process for each Grade Limits on the DTM.

Might be a good idea to move completed Pads to a storage layer that does NOT affect the DTM, so they do not confuse current work.

Return all Pads (or Duplicates) to effective layer when all are adjusted and the DTM is at the original Anchor position. Update the DTM.

 

-B

[Phillip Tripp]

Katarina,

You asked ….

WISH LIST

Some of these may be from lack of knowledge about specific tools and best practices for accomplishing tasks, but this is a first pass for site model and grading tool wish list items.  We are currently on VW 2022 and some users in our office are still using VW 2019, depends on age of active projects.  We paused upgrading to more recent versions due to item H below.

 

A.      #1 wish list, a grade tool that allows the same grade tool functions along a curved line or continuous polyline, rather than limiting to a straight line.

B.      #2 wish list, the ability to export the proposed contours as 3D polylines in DWG format for only the extents of the proposed contours within the grading limits area.  Most consultants only want the new contours and not all contours for the entire proposed site model.  The concept behind the grade limits line is the site model new contours should be tying into the existing contours at this moment, with slight tolerance for simplification settings potentially causing slight misalignment with original survey contours.  If we send the entire proposed surface contours to a consultant, we have to send the grade limits line as well, and then they trim the proposed contour lines back to the grade limit object. 

C.     Editing existing grade tools.  Would be great to edit all variables directly in OIP menu and not have to wait on a pop up menu specific to grade tools.

D.     Editing existing grade tools.  Some edits do not take effect the first time as in you want to change a slope or spot elevation in the grade tool window, click enter, no change.  You have to repeat the process to make the desired change happen.  Ideally, the changes would happen the first time.

E.      Would be nice if after editing an existing grade tool setting, the screen highlighted briefly the adjacent connected grading tool modifiers that changed as a result of the edit, for the benefit of bringing attention the user of the consequence of their actions.

F.      Would be nice if you could select a group of grading tools such as several along one continuous connected series and then edit the beginning elevation of the group and the final elevation of the group and have the slope be equal amongst all grading tool modifiers within that selected group.  This eliminates having to edit each segment one at a time.  I think currently editing more than one grade tool at the same time forces matching settings for both segments including elevations.

G.     In 2019, we were able to have multiple grading modifier design layers and then pick and choose when design layer the site model would listen to which is fantastic for sharing grading options in a site model.  In recent versions of VW, we ran into issues where if we duplicated one grading modifier design layer and then editing the duplicate, the original design layer modifier also changed.  This meant we no longer were able to easily illustrate two distinctly different grading options with different grading modifiers on different layers.  Ideally we can duplicate a design layer with option 1 grading modifiers, edit the duplicate grading modifiers called option 2, and the tell the site model to listen to option 1 or 2 as needed, without grading modifier changes in option 1 or 2 affecting each other when the site model settings are set to only listen to either option 1 or 2, but not both at the same time.  I repeat this was an amazing benefit of VW2019.

H.     I have already submitted this issue to VW in greater detail, but the short version of the issue in VW2022 which did not happen in VW2019, is the site model incorrectly reinterpreting contour lines rather than perfecting matching grading modifier contour lines.  VW 2019 contour lines would create a site model with a contour lines that matched the desired grading modifier contour line.  VW 2022 open line grading modifier only matches the bottom of hill contour lines and then invents it’s own final top of hill contour line rather than matching the final top of proposed hill open line grading modifier.  Single isolated lines also exhibit the problem.  Corrective measures include adding stakes and other modifiers to force the model to match the original desired open grading modifier line.  Besides desired intent not behaving as anticipated, the bigger issue is receiving 100s of consultant 3D polylines and having our site model not accurately show the same contour lines because the site model is reinterpreting too much along the perimeter of grading areas, i.e. the final contour within a given area.

I.        We noticed revit has issues imported vertical or near vertical wall cuts.  The workaround has been to have two separate design layers, one that uses VW grading modifiers to visually show  basement wall cut into the earth to make VW look good and then a separate grading modifier design layer that does not include the vertical wall cut and then let the revit architectural team use revit tools to recut the site model basement out again.  We then switch the site model settings to listen to the right design layer before exporting files to the architects.

J.        For cut fill earth work calculations, it would be ideal to be able to draw hardscapes for existing conditions and have the earthwork calculations evaluate changes in earth only between existing and proposed hardscape conditions.  This means cut fill starting at the existing top of earth below vehicular pavement hardscape profile and comparing that to top of earth in the proposed new hardscape condition.  I believe currently the cut fill calculations exclude the hardscape profile from the proposed condition but then compares that proposed earth elevation to the walking surface of all materials in the existing condition.  I think this is true because it is not possible to assign hardscape to proposed or existing conditions.  For the time being, we share disclaimers with contractors about the earthwork values for reasons above.

K.      It would be good to be able to see both existing and proposed hardscape in sections to show changes before and after in one view.  Maybe that is only possible with 2 overlapping viewports.

L.      Would be nice if the site model section tool that shows finish grade lines for proposed and existing with spot elevation callouts could be directly integrated into the typical section tool with all options within the typical section OIP settings.  Currently it is a separate process that requires copy pasting into section viewports, snapping to align.  Also would be nice if spot elevation callouts could be auto aligned above or below the section with leader lines automatically lengthened to avoid spot elevations being autogenerated on top of each other and unreadable without hand moving each text object.  This occurs when before and after section lines are very close to each other which happens in lots of conditions.

M.    For the grading tool analysis features, it would be ideal if the analysis can identify slopes exceeding desired constraint settings to a finer level of calculation than currently possible.  For instance, pavement codes require compliance with maximum slopes of 2% for accessibility but lets round down to 1.75% for construction tolerance.  Then let’s consider different surfaces have different minimum slopes due to different surface textures to allow reasonable water flow and prevent sediment buildup or icy conditions, so minimum slope is 1% or sometimes 1.5% on irregular pavement.   Now we are down to trying to flag shallow slopes below 1% or greater than 1.75%.  I know there are physical limits based on the simplification settings and triangulation of the surface and probably a variety of other things, but if there are limits, perhaps including a warning within the analysis settings to avoid overpromising what can be accomplished by the analysis.  If analysis at these small percentages is possible, perhaps allowing the user to draw a polygon around a specific area to limit the analysis and processing time to a small area of concern.  I am sure it works fine for mass grading excessive slope analysis.

N.     When running a grading tool modifier analysis and using the color to identify the issues, I think the color becomes permanent until overridden in another way.  If a lot of grading tools are present, the analysis can take a long time and then the thought of doing it again just to get the color back to matching others is unpleasant.  Especially if the analysis delivered undesirable results because the target goal of shallow slope analysis did not work very well.

O.     Using grade stake tools to label a grading plan is not as flexible as desired in terms of positioning text labels once the tool displays the text.  It seems to be fixed to specific settings.

P.      It would be preferrable if grade stakes set to display the spot elevation of the proposed surface would update automatically if the proposed surface is edited.  I believe currently they remain unchanged.  Perhaps it can be a setting for the user to decide behavior.  Currently we use grade tools to shape the surface and then manually create callouts for the specific spot elevations we think are useful for the contractor for construction, rather than show every grade tool spot elevation.  I suppose some users would prefer the ability to decide individually which grade tool spot elevation is printable versus for model shaping only purposes.  Our issue with that is we prefer to keep the text on grade tool modifiers small at 2pt to avoid the clutter of too much info in small spaces, which in turn is not suitable for printing.

Q.     It would be nice if there was a setting for tracking any changes in these grade stake values that are set to automatically update if the site model changes, which would trigger a highlight and would stay highlighted until the user stopped tracking.  This would allow the user to cloud the changes easily. 

R.      As an office, we have not used rood tools or curb line tools to know if they are already effective; but our initial attempts to use the tools proved challenging for us.  If the tool does not already exist, it would be nice to have the ability to have a standalone curb tool that allows for any section profile and then allows the user to draw a polyline with grade tool representing the back of curb.  The grades could change along the back of curb along that grade tool at nodes or the back of curb could be set to match adjacent pavement, or the gutter edge could match the other pavement.  We also have instances where curb heights vary, not just as crosswalk curb cuts, but a typical 6 inch concrete curb might increase or decrease in height simply to address unique existing conditions.  We can manually force the site model to illustrate all these conditions with multiple grade tools staked close to each other to draw unique vertical faces, but anything that can easier than that would be nice.  I think hardscape material tools start to address some things by choosing datum elevation relative to the material component settings, but I don’t think it allows more than one datum for front and back faces of curbs.

S.      On a side note about our general standard of practice in our office, we use the grade tool rather than path or road tools, as this allows us complete control of the surface.  We do this to create realistic twinmotion graphics of courtyards and entire sites.  Most projects do not include parking lots in the models or if they do, they are kept simple because we don’t have a quick technique to handling the curb appearance in custom situations, and in general, our focus is not the parking lot.  We often have to adhere to accessibility code with a low tolerance of slopes between 1% and 1.75% and we find we are “warping” surfaces rather than proposing simple evenly sloped plains, as we tie into existing conditions.  So high level of care in defining the surface and it is a lot of customization in different directions.  The idea of a simple sloped plain in one direction is rarely a reality.

[Katarina Ollikainen]

Hi @Phillip Tripp, thank you for taking the time and effort to collate this list - I will respond in this thread but will first contact you directly for some additional info on some of the items.