Jump to content
  • 7

Basically a Bug - Benchmark Elevations - Relative Elevations Independent of Viewport Location


Tom Klaber

Question

If you setup Benchmark Elevation markers in the annotation of a viewport - and set them to Control Point with a Y-Axis (2D MODE) - the reference point seems to be referenced to the position on the page rather than relative to the annotations.  This means if you move your viewport - as one often does when setting up sheets - all the elevation benchmarks become incorrect as the the control point does not move with the viewport.  The control point should bn "In" the annotations - and move along with the viewport.

 

This is close to a bug in my opinion - as there is not a single use case I can think of that would benefit from this behavior.

  • Like 3
Link to comment

13 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I use the Z-axis on the 3D model, if its a model. If i'm dealing with details,i set the details to the correct elevation on the detail layer and add the elevation benchmark on the detail (design layer). that way, I can move the details on the sheet layer without affecting the elevation benchmark.

 

2024-04-07_21-19-30.png

2024-04-07_21-22-12.png

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
  • 0
On 4/1/2024 at 10:37 PM, Tom Klaber said:

If you setup Benchmark Elevation markers in the annotation of a viewport - and set them to Control Point with a Y-Axis (2D MODE) - the reference point seems to be referenced to the position on the page rather than relative to the annotations.  This means if you move your viewport - as one often does when setting up sheets - all the elevation benchmarks become incorrect as the the control point does not move with the viewport.  The control point should bn "In" the annotations - and move along with the viewport.

 

This is close to a bug in my opinion - as there is not a single use case I can think of that would benefit from this behavior.

 

This is new behaviour in VW2024. Previously, when you moved an Elev BM the control point moved with it which was annoying in many circumstances because you had to keep readjusting the positions of control points + had to be careful they were set to the right position as it wasn't always obvious. Now you can duplicate multiple Elev BMs + move them wherever you want around the VP + they will all share a common control point. However, solving one problem seems to have created a new one as like you say, you definitely DON'T want the control points to stay in the same place when you move a VP.

 

I hadn't realised this was happening as like @Jonathan Pickup I'm more often using 3D Elev BMs which are getting their info from the model. But I am voting it up as whilst I wouldn't necessarily want it to go back to how it was in previous versions you should definitely be able to move a VP on a sheet without it affecting the location of the control points.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • 0
On 4/2/2024 at 10:37 AM, Tom Klaber said:

If you setup Benchmark Elevation markers in the annotation of a viewport - and set them to Control Point with a Y-Axis (2D MODE) - the reference point seems to be referenced to the position on the page rather than relative to the annotations.  This means if you move your viewport - as one often does when setting up sheets - all the elevation benchmarks become incorrect as the the control point does not move with the viewport.  The control point should bn "In" the annotations - and move along with the viewport.

 

This is close to a bug in my opinion - as there is not a single use case I can think of that would benefit from this behavior.

Tom, are using the control point or user reference. 

2024-04-08_08-07-13.png

Link to comment
  • 0
On 4/7/2024 at 5:22 AM, Jonathan Pickup said:

I use the Z-axis on the 3D model, if its a model. If i'm dealing with details,i set the details to the correct elevation on the detail layer and add the elevation benchmark on the detail (design layer). that way, I can move the details on the sheet layer without affecting the elevation benchmark.

 

2024-04-07_21-19-30.png

2024-04-07_21-22-12.png

All fine and good if you have a 3D model.  After some painful years - we have gone back to drawing our elevations and sections in 2D.  I loved the fact that VW had a tool to help coordinate the 2D process - but this bug has me completely petrified that we are going to send out a set and not notice that all the benchmarks are incorrect because somebody tweaked the sheet layout.

 

Suddenly this is a HUGE liability. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • 0
On 4/7/2024 at 4:08 PM, Jonathan Pickup said:

Tom, are using the control point or user reference. 

2024-04-08_08-07-13.png


We use Control Point - and have taken to adding a tick at the 0'0 so that we can adjust the control points of all benchmarks at the same time.  This behavior is only related to the control point method. 

 

It's frustratingly funny that this is the exact behavior that I actually want and have been asking for when it comes to the drawing labels.  I want them to maintain their association with the viewport but NOT move when tweaking the position of the viewport.  But here, it is truly catastrophic.  This will lead to a lawsuit somewhere for sure.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0

I cannot stress how annoying this is for my office as well.

We, like Tom, tried to switch to a 3D based workflow (of which I have several years of experience in Revit) but after so many bugs and missing features we reverted to 2D. However, this is one of our biggest concerns at the moment (together with the inability to craft simple parametric 2D symbols for doors and such) and it forces us to work in a limbo between design layers and viewport annotation space which is really not ideal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0
11 hours ago, Matt Panzer said:

This does appear to be a bug.  I submitted VB-205143 so the engineers can have a closer look.

 

Oh I assumed it was WAD so filed an enhancement request VE-106132. At least that's all bases covered 😀

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • 0
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
6 hours ago, Tom W. said:

 

Oh I assumed it was WAD so filed an enhancement request VE-106132. At least that's all bases covered 😀

 

Thanks, Tom.  It looks like the VE and VB have already been linked in our tracking system and the issue is being looked at.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...