Creating a 'Site Model' Class: States already existing

[Michael Siggers]

Hi

 

I have created a Site Model which currently is assigned the 'None' Class.

 

When I try to create a Class called 'Site Model', it states it already exists but it is nowhere to be seen in my Class List. Have checked for Invisible ones too.

 

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

Kind regards

 

Mike

[Tom W.]

Does it say the Class already exists or that the name is already in use? You cannot have two 'things' in VW with the same name so you can't call a class 'Site Model' because you already have a thing in the file called that: the Site Model object itself. 

[Pat Stanford]

Tom is exactly correct on the names.

 

So a Class name like "Site Models" or "Site Model 1" would be acceptable.

[Michael Siggers]

10 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

Does it say the Class already exists or that the name is already in use? You cannot have two 'things' in VW with the same name so you can't call a class 'Site Model' because you already have a thing in the file called that: the Site Model object itself. 

[Michael Siggers]

10 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

Does it say the Class already exists or that the name is already in use? You cannot have two 'things' in VW with the same name so you can't call a class 'Site Model' because you already have a thing in the file called that: the Site Model object itself. 

Hi Tom

 

It states the Class Already Exists. I am trying to create a new Class.

 

Screenshot attached.

 

Kind regards

 

Mike

[Michael Siggers]

Just a bit of Background........

 

Attached is a screenshot.

 

I am trying to transfer the OS Map areas shown below the Site Model to the Site Model itself as the Plan view will be used for a Planning Application. The Proposed Design is only using a small areas of this and I will use a Site Modfier - Pad for this.

 

So far I am using the Site Modifier - Texture Bed, after selecting the various areas, (tedious), and it seems to work, although the lines between the areas are pretty much non visible. I could do with them being black like on the OS Map.

 

Would be nice if I could just drape all the linework onto the Site Model and shade the areas, but hey, that would be too simple, unless there is a way and I am missing something.

 

Mike

[Michael Siggers]

Oh, and just to say, this is a Practice file for a Project I am working on. Wanted to get the process correct before working on the actual file.

 

Mike

[Michael Siggers]

Send to Surface does this.......... attached screenshot.

 

Mike

[Tom W.]

6 minutes ago, Michael Siggers said:

Hi Tom

 

It states the Class Already Exists. I am trying to create a new Class.

 

Screenshot attached.

 

Kind regards

 

Mike

 

Ok but the fact remains: you can't give a class a name which is being used elsewhere in the file. Like Pat says.

[Michael Siggers]

Just now, Tom W. said:

 

Ok but the fact remains: you can't give a class a name which is being used elsewhere in the file. Like Pat says.

Ah, no worries. So it doesn't matter whether it's a class, object, layer etc., if the name is the same, it can not be used?

 

Mike

[Tom W.]

Just now, Michael Siggers said:

Ah, no worries. So it doesn't matter whether it's a class, object, layer etc., if the name is the same, it can not be used?

 

Mike

 

Absolutely. You can't have two 'things' in the file with the same name. So you can't have a texture called 'Concrete' if you already have a hatch called 'Concrete' etc. But you can have 'Concrete RT' + 'Concrete HF'.

[Tom W.]

9 minutes ago, Michael Siggers said:

Just a bit of Background........

 

Attached is a screenshot.

 

I am trying to transfer the OS Map areas shown below the Site Model to the Site Model itself as the Plan view will be used for a Planning Application. The Proposed Design is only using a small areas of this and I will use a Site Modfier - Pad for this.

 

So far I am using the Site Modifier - Texture Bed, after selecting the various areas, (tedious), and it seems to work, although the lines between the areas are pretty much non visible. I could do with them being black like on the OS Map.

 

Would be nice if I could just drape all the linework onto the Site Model and shade the areas, but hey, that would be too simple, unless there is a way and I am missing something.

 

Mike

 

There are other posts somewhere about draping images over Site Models which might be helpful. I have never done it. Do you need to turn it into a texture? I can't remember. I use the OS data as it is for generating 2D drawings like the Location Plan, etc. And trace over it for adding 3D features to the Site Model: Fences, roads (Hardscapes), etc. I've never thought to do what you're trying to do, kind of combining the 2D + 3D. What will the end result be i.e. which drawings will this generate for the planning app?

[Michael Siggers]

2 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

There are other posts somewhere about draping images over Site Models which might be helpful.

Hi Tom

 

Yes, looked at a lot on the forum but no answers that I need. I managed to add a Texture Bed modifier but the line around it is non-existant.

 

Essentially I need to show the Design on the Site Model to show various North, South, East, West Elevations so we can see the levels and relationship with surrounding buildings. I guess I need to rethink this then? Maybe drop the 3D elements on the Site Model so I can generate the elevations, then for the Plan view, switch off the Site Model, which will reveal the OS Map below, with the 3D elements will visible from plan view.

 

Also, the Client does want a Rendering for the area involved, so I need to add in Car Parks and Markings etc. onto the 3D. Should be able to do that with Texture Modifier?

 

Would be nice if the OS Map could be stamped onto the terrain though.

 

Mike

[Pat Stanford]

The only exception single names is Layers.  Layer Names are in a different "List" in VW than Classes, objects and resources.

 

So you could have a Layer and a Class both named ONE. Or a Layer and and Object Both names ONE.  But you can't have a Class and an Object both names ONE.

 

The list of things that can't share names include (but this list is not exhaustive):

• Objects in the drawing
• Classes
• Plug-in Objects (Door, Window, Site Model, etc.)
• Record Formats
• Textures
• Hatches
• Gradients
• Symbols
• Styles
• Materials
• Worksheets

[Tom W.]

Just now, Michael Siggers said:

Hi Tom

 

Yes, looked at a lot on the forum but no answers that I need. I managed to add a Texture Bed modifier but the line around it is non-existant.

 

Essentially I need to show the Design on the Site Model to show various North, South, East, West Elevations so we can see the levels and relationship with surrounding buildings. I guess I need to rethink this then? Maybe drop the 3D elements on the Site Model so I can generate the elevations, then for the Plan view, switch off the Site Model, which will reveal the OS Map below, with the 3D elements will visible from plan view.

 

Also, the Client does want a Rendering for the area involved, so I need to add in Car Parks and Markings etc. onto the 3D. Should be able to do that with Texture Modifier?

 

Would be nice if the OS Map could be stamped onto the terrain though.

 

Mike

 

For my planning applications I use the Site Model to generate the 1:100 or 1:200 site plan/block plan + the OS map to generate the 1:1250 or 1:2500 location plan. Or sometimes I use both + have the Site Model superimposed over the top of the OS data.

 

I create the Site Model based mainly on the topo survey plus the OS data for outlying areas.

 

But yes for me, the OS data just gives the wider context + only features in small scale drawings. Everything else comes from the site model i.e. is derived from 3D geometry. For example this is something I'm working on this moment:

 

The left hand VP uses the OS map whereas the right hand VP uses the site model.

 

I would create car parks + hard landscaping using Hardscapes and/or Landscape Areas. I don't use Texture Bed Site Modifiers. Both Hardscapes + LAs can be draped over the site model in the manner of a texture bed but you have the 2D representation plus they are 3D objects that can cut the site model + be represented in section VPs. 

[Tom W.]

15 minutes ago, Pat Stanford said:

The only exception single names is Layers.  Layer Names are in a different "List" in VW than Classes, objects and resources.

 

So you could have a Layer and a Class both named ONE. Or a Layer and and Object Both names ONE.  But you can't have a Class and an Object both names ONE.

 

The list of things that can't share names include (but this list is not exhaustive):

• Objects in the drawing
• Classes
• Plug-in Objects (Door, Window, Site Model, etc.)
• Record Formats
• Textures
• Hatches
• Gradients
• Symbols
• Styles
• Materials
• Worksheets

 

I didn't realise that about Layers. Looks like Data Visualisations can also be named whatever you want. But not Saved Views: they can be added to your list.

[Michael Siggers]

37 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

For my planning applications I use the Site Model to generate the 1:100 or 1:200 site plan/block plan + the OS map to generate the 1:1250 or 1:2500 location plan. Or sometimes I use both + have the Site Model superimposed over the top of the OS data.

 

I create the Site Model based mainly on the topo survey plus the OS data for outlying areas.

 

But yes for me, the OS data just gives the wider context + only features in small scale drawings. Everything else comes from the site model i.e. is derived from 3D geometry. For example this is something I'm working on this moment:

 

The left hand VP uses the OS map whereas the right hand VP uses the site model.

 

I would create car parks + hard landscaping using Hardscapes and/or Landscape Areas. I don't use Texture Bed Site Modifiers. Both Hardscapes + LAs can be draped over the site model in the manner of a texture bed but you have the 2D representation plus they are 3D objects that can cut the site model + be represented in section VPs. 

Thank you Tom

 

This approach makes sense. Now just need to implement that for my project. I would assume that in plan view the terrain is turned off leaving the 3D Design and the OS Map showing below.

 

Just trying to get my head around how to show the design, including the Car Partk etc. but show the wider OS map as surely the terrain would be in the way. In other words visable versus no-visable elements?

 

Mike

[Tom W.]

3 minutes ago, Michael Siggers said:

I would assume that in plan view the terrain is turned off leaving the 3D Design and the OS Map showing below.

 

In the LH VP the site model is turned off + the OS data turned on. In the RH VP it's the opposite.

 

Here's another VP from the same file:

 

The contour lines are from the Site Model; the roads + gravel areas are Hardscapes applied to the Site Model; the buildings are modelled in 3D in separate files + referenced in. So the OS data plays no part in this VP, I just traced over it when laying out the roads as they fell beyond the extent of my topo survey. Everything you see is 2D geometry that comes from a 3D object i.e. Site Model, Plants, Hardscapes, Landscape Areas, Roofs, Railing/Fence objects, hybrid symbols. All the other VPs in the file come from the same objects whether they are 3D perspective views, sections or elevations.

 

In my Site Models I always have 'Draw Site Border' in the 2D Display pane disabled, so that in Top/Plan I just have the contours showing with no fill, and always have the Site Model layer stacked above the Hardscapes layer so I see the contour lines over the top of the hard landscaping.

 

13 minutes ago, Michael Siggers said:

Just trying to get my head around how to show the design, including the Car Partk etc. but show the wider OS map as surely the terrain would be in the way.

 

This is an example of what I meant about having the Site Model etc overlayed over the OS data:

 

Basically if you just have all this stuff in the file - on different layers - you can turn it on + off as you want in the VPs to get the drawing you want.

[E|FA]

8 hours ago, Pat Stanford said:

The only exception single names is Layers.

This is a little off topic, but Wall Closure names have an entirely different behavior.  The same Closure Names are used in different walls, and each one has a different behavior.  You are intended to use the same name for different items.  Very confusing.  This is discussed in another thread:

  

[Michael Siggers]

16 hours ago, Tom W. said:

the Site Model layer stacked above the Hardscapes layer so I see the contour lines over the top of the hard landscaping.

Thank you Tom

 

This is incredibly helpful. Very much appreciated.

 

Interesting about Hardscapes as I thought they had to be created on the same layer as the Site Model.

 

Mike

[Tom W.]

5 minutes ago, Michael Siggers said:

Thank you Tom

 

This is incredibly helpful. Very much appreciated.

 

Interesting about Hardscapes as I thought they had to be created on the same layer as the Site Model.

 

Mike

 

No I think I only have the Site Model itself on my 'site model' layer. I then have a 'site modifiers' layer + a 'hard landscaping' layer + you just need to make sure the site model 'talks to' those layers (in the 'use site modifiers on' settings).

[Michael Siggers]

Thank you @Tom W.

 

Was just in the process of reading about that 🙂

 

Mike

[Tamsin Slatter]

18 hours ago, Michael Siggers said:

Just a bit of Background........

 

Attached is a screenshot.

 

I am trying to transfer the OS Map areas shown below the Site Model to the Site Model itself as the Plan view will be used for a Planning Application. The Proposed Design is only using a small areas of this and I will use a Site Modfier - Pad for this.

 

So far I am using the Site Modifier - Texture Bed, after selecting the various areas, (tedious), and it seems to work, although the lines between the areas are pretty much non visible. I could do with them being black like on the OS Map.

 

Would be nice if I could just drape all the linework onto the Site Model and shade the areas, but hey, that would be too simple, unless there is a way and I am missing something.

 

Mike

If you georeference your Vectorworks file, you can automatically drape a geoimage onto the surface of the site model which just a checkbox on its 3D settings tab.

No more tedious Texture Bed workflows!
Here's a link to a course that may help you. 

https://university.vectorworks.net/course/view.php?id=274

It was recorded a few years ago by me and my colleague Katarina.

[Michael Siggers]

@Tom W.

 

Hi Tom

 

Still, persisting with this. Watching loads of Vectorworks Videos etc.

 

Simple Question: What layer am I supposed to be on when I create Site Modifiers? Trying the create a Property Line. Video shows this being done in 2 minutes. 30 Minutes later and I ma still trying. None of the videos cover this simple question.

 

Mike

[Tom W.]

2 minutes ago, Michael Siggers said:

What layer am I supposed to be on when I create Site Modifiers? Trying the create a Property Line.

 

The standard advice is to put site modifiers on their own layer. Just makes it a lot easier to select them + isolate them. This is what I have in the file I'm currently in:

 

 

I personally don't use Property Lines as site modifiers so I put them in a separate 'annotations' layer. I just use it as a glorified polygon to represent the red line site boundary which I turn on in Top/Plan VPs when needed.