2D view of Cut and Fill is NECESSARY for landscape architects (make it easier)

[Anna Arbetter]

There needs to be a better way to make a 2D image of the Cut/Fill view. Currently, the Cut/Fill view of the terrain model is only a 3D view. Even when a Site Model Snapshot is made, it still must be viewed in 3D to see the cut and fill areas. To view cut/fill in a viewport, the viewport must be in a 3D view. A viewport in a 3D view will only, as far as I can tell, show all the 2D objects if 'Display planar objects' and 'Project screen objects' are checked. This makes a pixelated view of 2D objects. THERE MUST BE AN EASIER WAY to make a clearer viewport of cut and fill on a site. If not, there needs to be.

[Katarina Ollikainen]

@yasin2ray, I fully agree - a 2D view of c&f is required. We're working on this, together with improvements in how the areas are displayed, and also how to retrieve more volume and area information from the map.

 

[Anna Arbetter]

On 1/2/2026 at 9:32 AM, Katarina Ollikainen said:

@yasin2ray, I fully agree - a 2D view of c&f is required. We're working on this, together with improvements in how the areas are displayed, and also how to retrieve more volume and area information from the map.

 

Fantastic! We need all of those things. I hope they come through soon. Thanks for informing us of these upcoming updates.

I would like to add Depth to that, a grid with numbers showing depth of change (like what is produced in AutoCad Civil 3D).

Anna

[Laura Stone]

Will this include an ability for the site model to be coloured depending on the depth of cut and fill in each area?  Just been asked for this and realised it can't currently be done, think it can be in Civils 3D.

[Katarina Ollikainen]

The idea is to both visually show depth differences for the cut and fill and also give you access to the volumes.

[jpccrodrigues]

Hi, good morning,

 

Some time ago I did something similar to that:

 

The data is there, it would become a major feature!

[Anders Blomberg]

Also looking forward to something like this! Preferably the amount of coloured fields for different depths would be completely editable to any number. Not limited to a certain (and low) maximum as the slope analysis settings for the site.

[HebHeb]

From a German landscape architecture perspective (i.e. real construction-oriented planning, not just early “design phases”), the Site Model in Vectorworks is conceptually very powerful - but still far away from what is needed in real-world projects, especially in terms of analysis and visualization.

That is why I have spent a significant amount of time developing custom Marionette objects and scripts. One thing is very clear to me:
the Site Model itself (existing + proposed terrain, components, modifiers) is far more powerful than what the current built-in analysis and visualization tools are able to expose.

I think, as a community, we could come up with a coordinated "wish list" of what a Site Model should be able to do in a professional landscape architecture context.

I am a bit short on time right now, but I will start with some initial brainstorming ideas:

• Analysis limited to a defined area (control geometry), not always the whole Site Model
• Analysis per Site Model component / stratum, individually and per defined area
• Workflows that exclude Hardscape and Landscape Areas on top without using “Cut Out Site Model” > so that only the actually required fill volume (excluding Hardscape / LA build-ups) is calculated
• Support for dynamic fill layers with thickness limits vs. unlimited layers
• …

 

…and so on.

I will come back to this thread later to add more thoughts - as mentioned, I’m a bit short on time at the moment.

Edited January 14 by HebHeb

[Anders Blomberg]

All very good ideas @HebHeb! We're doing a lot of projects with basically just cut&fill calculations for large areas in early stages and I hate that we always have to go with Civil3D for those.

It would also tie this to the planned feature of site model phasing. I've got a bunch of projects where my customer is looking for cut&fill for just the first stage of excavation for the buildings foundation, with proper slopes according to geotechnical requirements. The cut&fill for landscaping would be handled separately. Unfortunately he's getting it done elsewhere now in Geo Professional because it's so much faster and has better tools.

[MethodDesign]

@Anna Arbetter have you tried the 2D Cut  Fill Area option in the Site Model Graphic Properties.

It's not an ideal solution at present, but it might offer a simpler alternative to the 3D approach you've described.

Its current limitations are:

1. The site model needs a solid fill for the cut & fill areas to be visible, which is a problem if you want objects & layers below the site model to be visible on your plan (e.g. aerial photos). A possible workaround is to stack two viewports on your sheet layer.
2. As noted below the 2D Cut  Fill Area checkbox, the colored polygons are placed on top of the site model, obscuring the contour lines. A workaround for this is to Create a Snapshot of the site model, set its fill to None, and stack it above the working site model.

To improve 2D Cut & Fill function I'd be suggesting:

• Make the 2D Cut & Fill display independent of the Site Model fill opacity, ideally with it's own opacity setting in the Site Model Graphic Properties window.
• Stack the 2D Cut & Fill polygons below the site model contour lines, labels, etc.
• Add the missing '&' to the text description beside the checkbox (and remove the duplicate '&'s from the Site Model Net C&&F Volume and Total C&&F Volume field headings).     

 

 

Edited January 27 by MethodDesign
Clarity

[Anna Arbetter]

10 hours ago, MethodDesign said:

@Anna Arbetter have you tried the 2D Cut  Fill Area option in the Site Model Graphic Properties.

It's not an ideal solution at present, but it might offer a simpler alternative to the 3D approach you've described.

Its current limitations are:

1. The site model needs a solid fill for the cut & fill areas to be visible, which is a problem if you want objects & layers below the site model to be visible on your plan (e.g. aerial photos). A possible workaround is to stack two viewports on your sheet layer.
2. As noted below the 2D Cut  Fill Area checkbox, the colored polygons are placed on top of the site model, obscuring the contour lines. A workaround for this is to Create a Snapshot of the site model, set its fill to None, and stack it above the working site model.

To improve 2D Cut & Fill function I'd be suggesting:

• Make the 2D Cut & Fill display independent of the Site Model fill opacity, ideally with it's own opacity setting in the Site Model Graphic Properties window.
• Stack the 2D Cut & Fill polygons below the site model contour lines, labels, etc.
• Add the missing '&' to the text description beside the checkbox (and remove the duplicate '&'s from the Site Model Net C&&F Volume and Total C&&F Volume field headings).     

 

 

@MethodDesign I'm not sure what you mean be "2D Cut Fill Area option...as an alternative to the 3D approach". Checking that box creates the graphics for Cut and Fill. The view of Cut and Fill can only be seen in a 3D view (Top, etc. Not in Top/Plan).

Anna

[MethodDesign]

3 hours ago, Anna Arbetter said:

@MethodDesign I'm not sure what you mean be "2D Cut Fill Area option...as an alternative to the 3D approach". Checking that box creates the graphics for Cut and Fill. The view of Cut and Fill can only be seen in a 3D view (Top, etc. Not in Top/Plan).

Anna

 

Hi @Anna Arbetter

The 2D Cut Fill Area check box found in the Site Analysis tab of the Graphic Properties popout window in Site Model Settings (screenshots in my previous post), is a 2D representation that is only visible in Top/Plan view, provided that the Fill Style of the Site Model is set to Solid. See screenshot below and example .vwx file attached.

The 2D Cut Fill Area setting is entirely separate to the Cut and Fill 3D Display mode that can be selected in the main Site Model Settings window, and the two can be used independently. Their color settings are also independent of eachother.

The 2D option is quite unintuitively hidden away in comparison to the 3D option, and it has been this way for many years. I assume the rationale is that it's a form of 'Site Analysis'.

My further suggestions for the improvement of Site Model Cut & Fill representation would be:

• The 2D Cut & Fill Area should be made equally accessible and intuitive to find as the Cut and Fill 3D Display mode.
• The 2D and 3D Cut & Fill representations should generate results that are consistent with eachother.
• There should be an additional 3D display option which shows areas of Cut & Fill draped over the proposed 3D terrain, as opposed to the current option which converts the site model to a flat plane with 3D Cut & Fill volumes shown relative to it.

 

 

260128_VW26_Landmark_2D Cut & Fill Example.vwx