Site models in Horizontal Section Viewports

[line-weight]

It seems that it's not possible to show a site model in its "2d style" in a horizontal section viewport. What gets drawn is its 3d style - regardless of whether "display 2d components" is ticked in the viewport's settings.

 

This means that if the site model is set to display as a mesh in 3d, that's what gets drawn in the horizontal section viewport. This is not very useful - if a Site model is going to be shown in a HSVP then it I'd say the most useful way for it to be shown is as contours.

 

Of course I can change the Site Model's settings to display as extruded contours in 3d, which works OK for the HSVP but I don't want it showing as a series of steps in vertical sections.

[Tom W.]

Do Site Model Snapshots help?

Or do you need to stack two VPs: Top/Plan for the DTM + HSVP for the building? Presumably Hardscapes, Landscape Areas, Plants, etc are all going to look wrong too...? 

The way Site Models in Hidden Line VPs is a big issue generally. In building elevations I have to mask the terrain with a polygon in annotations to get it looking decent.

Shaded elevations it looks perfect.

[line-weight]

59 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

Do Site Model Snapshots help?

Or do you need to stack two VPs: Top/Plan for the DTM + HSVP for the building? Presumably Hardscapes, Landscape Areas, Plants, etc are all going to look wrong too...? 

The way Site Models in Hidden Line VPs is a big issue generally. In building elevations I have to mask the terrain with a polygon in annotations to get it looking decent.

Shaded elevations it looks perfect.

 

Yes it looks a bit like it's going to have to be one of those solutions. Or maybe I just turn off the site model in floorplan views (but really I'd like to show it in a site layout where I'd like to show it plus building outlines).

 

What are the main issues in wireframe?

[Tom W.]

36 minutes ago, line-weight said:

What are the main issues in wireframe?

 

I am generally very happy with how things look in Top/Plan as you know. I tend to display my Site Model with 'Draw site border' disabled so I just have contours + I have the Site Model layer stacked above the hard landscaping layer so the contours display over the top of Hardscapes + Landscape Areas e.g.

 

 

This is a VP so I've made the contours grey/dashed. This is the design layer:

 

[line-weight]

Sorry, I misread, thought you were saying there are general issues in wireframe (ie. would apply to top/plan) but I see you said hidden line. Yes, the site model tool seems to be designed mainly to work in a top/plan view.

 

However, there are quite a few objects like that and in general they can be made to work OK in HSVPs if you tick the "display 2d components" box. But ticking that box seems to have no effect on site model objects. Perhaps @Matt Panzer is able to comment?

[Matt Panzer]

13 hours ago, line-weight said:

However, there are quite a few objects like that and in general they can be made to work OK in HSVPs if you tick the "display 2d components" box. But ticking that box seems to have no effect on site model objects. Perhaps @Matt Panzer is able to comment?

 

If the site model does not intersect the cut plane of the horizontal section, it should show its Top 2D component.  Are you not seeing this?

[line-weight]

2 hours ago, Matt Panzer said:

 

If the site model does not intersect the cut plane of the horizontal section, it should show its Top 2D component.  Are you not seeing this?

Ok - thanks - I see that the cut plane was intersecting a small part of the site model, and when I raise it, then the 2D component shows.

 

There are some problems with this though. Here is a section through the site - you can see two buildings are set into a sloping hillside.

 

First - if I want to use an HSVP to create a floorplan for either of those buildins, it's necessarily going to have to intersect the site model.

 

Second - if I am satisfied with both buildings being represented as roof plans, then of course I can raise the cut plane higher. But then VW loses any consciousness of where things are in 3d space and it simply draws the site model on top of the buildings:

 

 

(Here, it's drawn part of the roof of the upper building but that's only because I've used roof faces there. Very often a lot of my model is direct-modelled with solids)

 

So, presumably I'd have to put it on a different layer and put it at the bottom of the stacking pile? But I can foresee various potential problems with this, for example anything below ground I may have to put on a dedicated layer and so on. All of this loses the big benefit of the HSVP which is that you can let the computer do the work deciding what's occluded by what, and so on, rather than fiddling with all the top/plan workarounds.

 

It's a shame the site model can't simply be sectioned as a 3d object, but have its top surface represented as contours rather than mesh polygons.

 

The best result I've got so far is making a snapshot of the site model with "extruded contours" as its 3d style, and using this for the site plan in a "top" view:

Of course this means I can't have the contour heights labelled automatically.

 

The snapshot method works for a HSVP with floorplan too:

 

 

If I was dealing with a model where the floorplan cut plan did not intersect the site model (which is the more common situation) then, using this method, I'd have to turn 2d components off, which might be inconvenient when I need to show 2d components for other objects in the floorplan.

 

In that case we are back to something I've requested before which is the ability to turn 2d components on/off per object or object type, rather than just per viewport!

[line-weight]

A question...

 

Does this setting, when used with hidden line rendering, actually do anything? It doesn't seem to. If I specify a class with a solid red fill, for example, nothing appears filled in red in the hidden line rendering.

 

 

 

[Tom W.]

6 minutes ago, line-weight said:

A question...

 

Does this setting, when used with hidden line rendering, actually do anything? It doesn't seem to. If I specify a class with a solid red fill, for example, nothing appears filled in red in the hidden line rendering.

 

 

 

 

Hidden Line doesn't support solid fills, only Surface Hatches, so that explains why your red fill doesn't do anything. But selecting a class that has a texture assigned to it that uses a surface hatch doesn't result in objects in the VP displaying with that surface hatch so yes does seem like a pointless setting as far as HL is concerned. 

[line-weight]

13 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

Hidden Line doesn't support solid fills, only Surface Hatches, so that explains why your red fill doesn't do anything. But selecting a class that has a texture assigned to it that uses a surface hatch doesn't result in objects in the VP displaying with that surface hatch so yes does seem like a pointless setting as far as HL is concerned. 

 

Ok, I've always been a bit unclear about this - it only really becomes relevant once you're trying to stack viewports.

So hidden line can show fills for the cut plane but not for planes that are seen in elevation.

[Tom W.]

5 minutes ago, line-weight said:

 

Ok, I've always been a bit unclear about this - it only really becomes relevant once you're trying to stack viewports.

So hidden line can show fills for the cut plane but not for planes that are seen in elevation.

 

Yes the way I look at it, beyond the cut plane you're looking at 3D geometry whereas on the cut plane it's 2D.

[line-weight]

I realised that there was a problem with the various options I posted above: I always have my sections set up so that anything "beyond the cut plane" is drawn in a specific linetype determined by a "lines in elevation" class - rather than using objects' "original attributes".

 

My workaround using a site model snapshot with extruded contours relied on those contours being drawn in elevation which meant that  couldn't use a different linetype for contours vs other geometry seen in elevation.

 

So my best solution for now is a stack of two viewports, one with a "beyond the cut plane" linetype for contours and the other with a "beyond the cut plane" linetype for other geometry. A site model snapshot is not necessary - the site model 3d style is set to show mesh plus 3d contours, and then mesh and contour attributes are set by classes which are controlled per viewport. All a bit of a bodge. I would like to find a much better method.

 

On the left, what it looks like when the cut plane is above the site model. On the right, when the cut plane intersects the site model. A stack of two HSVPs in each case.

 

[Tom W.]

In this case, what is it that this approach is giving you that Top/Plan won't?

[line-weight]

3 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

In this case, what is it that this approach is giving you that Top/Plan won't?

 

It's the same answer as for any scenario where I use an HSVP - the fact that Top/Plan can't correctly draw large portions of my models due to the way I build them, using solid modelling and objects that don't have 2d components.

[Tom W.]

Ok I wasn't clear from the screenshots what the ultimate aim is. You want floor plans of the buildings with the site behind. Would HSVPs of the buildings over a Top/Plan VP of the site then not be in order? I'm referring to this:

 

22 minutes ago, line-weight said:

the site model 3d style is set to show mesh plus 3d contours, and then mesh and contour attributes are set by classes which are controlled per viewport. All a bit of a bodge. I would like to find a much better method.

[line-weight]

29 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

HSVPs of the buildings over a Top/Plan VP of the site then not be in order? I'm referring to this:

One of the issues there would be that the HSVPs would not cover the site model contours (this would be less of a problem if they could accept solid fill, hence my earlier question).

 

There's a whole other thing about 3d objects that intersect the site model at non vertical angles. Vectorworks knows where they intersect the site model surface because it can show me in shaded view. But getting this to show as I want it when using stacked viewports gets complicated. 

 

Think of a non vertical tree trunk, represented by a cylinder. In my ideal world I'd like my plan to show the trunk above the surface (in elevation), I'd like to see the line where the trunk intersects the surface, and I don't want to see any of the trunk that is below the surface. And if my cut plane is intersects the trunk I want to see that too.

 

Using my normal setup, all of this is easily achieved if the ground surface is modelled as, say, a generic solid. But if it's a site model object, it's not.

[Matt Panzer]

On 12/11/2024 at 11:53 PM, line-weight said:

One of the issues there would be that the HSVPs would not cover the site model contours (this would be less of a problem if they could accept solid fill, hence my earlier question).

 

There's a whole other thing about 3d objects that intersect the site model at non vertical angles. Vectorworks knows where they intersect the site model surface because it can show me in shaded view. But getting this to show as I want it when using stacked viewports gets complicated. 

 

Think of a non vertical tree trunk, represented by a cylinder. In my ideal world I'd like my plan to show the trunk above the surface (in elevation), I'd like to see the line where the trunk intersects the surface, and I don't want to see any of the trunk that is below the surface. And if my cut plane is intersects the trunk I want to see that too.

 

Using my normal setup, all of this is easily achieved if the ground surface is modelled as, say, a generic solid. But if it's a site model object, it's not.

 

Hi @line-weight,

Would you mind entering an enhancement request for this and include a file showing what you current get vs what you'd like to get when using HSVPs?

[Matt Panzer]

BTW: I submitted a bug for the 2D component of the Site Model masking over other objects (VB-208907).

[line-weight]

@Matt Panzer, the behaviour where it only shows the 2d component if not intersected by the cut plane, is this intended rather than a bug? I don't really see in what scenario this would be useful.

Edited December 13, 2024 by line-weight

[Matt Panzer]

41 minutes ago, line-weight said:

@Matt Panzer, the behaviour where it only shows the 2d component if not intersected by the cut plane, is this intended rather than a bug? I don't really see in what scenario this would be useful.

 

The actual behavior is that, when the object is seen from the top uncut (from the cut plane), you see the Top component and, when the object is cut (by the cut plane), you see the "Top (and Bottom) Cut" component.  This is so an object can have an uncut and cut 2D representation of itself.  The system work well in more general cases but can get trickier for more complex objects.  For the Site Model, there is no obvious 2D graphic to show because the cut could vary greatly depending on the cut plane height.  However, In the Plug-in Object Options for the Site Model, you can set the Horizontal Cut Plane option to "View as Uncut below when Cut in Viewport and the Top component will also be seen when it's cut.

 

[line-weight]

Thanks for the explanations @Matt Panzer.

 

Before submitting a VE request I think I'd like to clarify what things are actually bugs - because actually maybe it can already do what I want it to, if the bug(s) are fixed.

 

See attached file and screenshots.

 

- In viewports 4 & 5 it seems to know the "tree trunks" should be visible above the site model, but not the curved steps...why's that?

- In viewports 6 & 7 it fails to draw the portion of the "tree trunks" between the cut plane & ground surface. Is that a bug?

 

 

 

 

 

VB site model.vwx

[Matt Panzer]

@line-weight,

 

Thank you for taking the time to put this together!

 

16 hours ago, line-weight said:

Thanks for the explanations @Matt Panzer.

 

Before submitting a VE request I think I'd like to clarify what things are actually bugs - because actually maybe it can already do what I want it to, if the bug(s) are fixed.

 

See attached file and screenshots.

 

- In viewports 4 & 5 it seems to know the "tree trunks" should be visible above the site model, but not the curved steps...why's that?

 

This issue is actually the Top 2D component location (VB-208907) causing the issue and the issue affects both the tree trunks and the stairs.  If you compare where the tree trunks terminate at the site in the HSVP (viewport 4 or 5) vs Top View (viewport 2), you can see the tree trunks extend further down on Top View.  So the stairs and tree trunk are all being cut off at the Top 2D component location.

 

 

 

16 hours ago, line-weight said:

- In viewports 6 & 7 it fails to draw the portion of the "tree trunks" between the cut plane & ground surface. Is that a bug?

 

This is also related to the same problem with the Top component location.

However, there is another problem that will show its face when the Top component location is moved to the bottom of the site model.  By default when a 2D component displays, the 3D component is not shown.  This means objects that intersect the site will show in their entirely because the site will not be there to cover the buried parts.  It is possible to tag 3D geometry in the site (or any PIO or symbol) to show along with 2D components.  The problem then is that the 3D geometry will be drawn on top of the Top 2D component in the beyond cut plane graphics causing the Top graphics to be occluded.  On the flip side, having the 3D show along with the 2D will allow the HSVP to show a cut where it intersects the cut plane.

 

Here's a list of needs I see here:

1. Resolve VB-208907 so that the Top 2D component does not mask all objects below.
2. Need to show a true section cut through the 3D site model and still see the 2D contour lines.
   Seems like the site model could show the same 2D Top component graphics in the "Top (and Bottom) Cut" components and display the 3D component along with it.  I don't know if this will work in the current system but worth looking into.
3. Need to not show the parts of 3D objects buried by the site model while showing the site model's Top component without showing any of the 3d site model itself.
   This is something I don't think can be solved using existing functionality.

So, other than VB-208907, I don't see any bugs described here (just current feature designs and limitations).

In any case, it would be great to have a VE with all of this information.

[line-weight]

@Matt Panzer ok - taking a closer look I see what you mean - so sadly it's rather further away from providing what I want, than I thought. It also makes me realise that what I thought was a usable workaround has some issues.

 

Attached is a revised version of the file where I've added "viewport 8" which shows basically how my (best current effort) workaround works.

 

 

From your comments above it sounds like it's not going to be easy to make site models compatible with HSVP workflows, if the strategy is to use the 2d component of the site model.

 

I don't know if there are any ways in which something using the site model's "3d contours" could be made to work. For example, if in my example, I was just able to tell the viewport to show the 3d contours in a different pen, that would get me 80% of the way towards what I want, and would provide something acceptable "for now".

 

 

VB site model v2.vwx

Edited December 16, 2024 by line-weight

[line-weight]

Another version, now with viewports 10 & 11 added. This is the system I am going to use for now I think. I have to accept stacked viewports, and some manual work done in annotation space.

 

I may get around to making this into a proper VE submission at some point...however I've already spent rather a lot of my own time messing with this and now need to get on with the actual drawings that earn me some fees for a bit. I think all the info is here in this thread for anyone who wants to look at what does and doesn't work in HSVPs as far as site models are concerned.