Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Dieter @ DWorks

2D in 3D plain

Question

Sometimes I find it very confusing to switch between 2D and 3D. would it not be easier when you go to 3D view, that all the objects and other 2D stuff that has no 3D attached to them, show in a 3D plain that you can give a z heigth. so that you can better orientate when going in 3D. This I have seen in ADT, And I think it is not that difficult to bring this in in VW.

Share this post


Link to post

16 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

In AutoCAD as adapted to the 3D environment, all 2d objects are actually 3d, as you have observed. In VW, this is not the case, and for good reason. What you are asking for is a fundamental change that won't be practical or good for the program. One of VW greatest strengths, IMHO, is the hybrid 2d/3d interface which requires the simultaneous display of 3d objects from any 3d point of view and 2d objects in the screen plane. This has the drawback that bothers you, but there are ways around the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

ADT works in a different way to vanilla AutoCAD. It's more akin to VW in it's use of hybrid objects. I too found the VW approach confusing at first but, as you say, there are ways around it.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
would it not be easier when you go to 3D view, that all the objects and other 2D stuff that has no 3D attached to them, show in a 3D plain that you can give a z heigth.

As a non-programmer, I can imagine that 2D-objects could be projected assuming all points are at zero Z-level. After all, that is how 'project 2D-objects' works with layer links and viewports.

However, giving z-coordinates transforms the objects from (extremely flexible) 2D to (often cumbersome) 3D.

As a non-mathematician, I have to use a simple example.

Assume 2 polygons, A and B. You want to

- combine them (union A/B)

- cut the overlapping part from one (?)

- create an "intersection" (the set of points that are members of sets A and B)

Assume an arbitrary projection of polygons on other arbitrary & different planes. What would the products of the above set operations be? A (non-planar) set of points that appears to be bounded by the intersection of the polygons in the projection of the moment? Maybe forming a solid? Also keep in mind that a 3D-polygon is guaranteed to be planar only when it has max 3 vertices. (Refer to a tripod at your local camera shop.)

EDIT

No UTF here? "Equal or less" becomes a question mark.

(Oh, now I get it! The good folks at NNA do not understand such a complex mathematical notation!)

Edited by Petri

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

What i mean is not giving each 2D object a different Z heigth, but each layer should have a plane where all the 2D objects are on (like now), but when you go in 3D, this plane should be visible with all 2D objects that exist solely out of 2D!. The 3D/2D objects show or 3D or 2D depending on which view you are in. so there should only be a visialisation of all 2D objects (with no 3D) in 3D by a plane

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

I'm with you (I think).

Still being the non-programmer, I can't even think of starting to understand how to conceptualise the process of the most rudimentary initial scoping of fathoming the perceived and possibly, but not necessarily, actual consequences of the ramifications and requirements to the software (in this rant called 'software') and user interface (in this rant called 'user interface'), whilst also taking into account the cost/benefit ratio of value-adding to both he initial investmet and consequent Product Development and Innovation, including any number of concepts, metaphors, paradigms, technologies and techniques that can be deemed to be protected by the general terms of the Copyright Act or equivalent of respective and other Countries or Legislations, regardless of their internationally recognised sovereignity even when they acknowledge the general principles of Intellectual Property, while perhaps not viably and feasibly covered by world-wide Patents and Trademarks, in order to determine the floor & ceiling values, where "floor" means the lowest value in the set of values and "ceiling" the highest; the numeric convention applied is the so-called Western-Roman-Arabic, where a set of nil members, called "zero", separates the so-called positive and negative values, despite the fact that the concept of zero is considered to be invented in India approximately in year 200 in the current European-Christian calendar (thus the alternative notations include the religously-laden expression "500 AD"), of future Return of Investment; notwithstanding, and in consideration of, the alleged prospective enhancements in User Experience, claimed by analysts and experts to be, if properly relayed from experienced users directly or through intermediaries or agents that are or are perceived to be reliable, much more significant factor in consumer purchase decision situations than just packaging, especially the ease of both opening the package and confirming, perhaps at an unconscious level, that the package has not, to the best of one's (in this rant defined to be the subject and "actor" of the process, if any, in question) knowledge, been opened before, notwithstanding possible actions, enabled by either (which in this rant means both "or" and "and") permanent legislation, legally valid acts by the Executive Government or Head of State, as applicable and including a possible Occupying Power as defined by Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, by the by Customs Authorities or Security Forces.

Isn't this, however, what we get - or can get - with layer links and viewports?

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

What about just having a preference option that allows for hiding 2D stuff when you go into 3D mode (like Stack Layers view)?

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

I've just spent a week working with a past autocad user who brought up this very point. We both came to the same conclusion as Christiaan. If 2d object were to just disappear in non 2d projections, that would lay to rest the majority of unwanted screen clutter.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

All that is needed is for Stack Layers to be part of the basic feature set (ie be included in Fundamentals).

In 12.5.1 it automatically switch on and off. As soon as you go into a 3D view the 2D switches off and then it reappears when you return to Top/Plan View. If you need the 2D in the 3D view (eg. with notes). All you need to do is switch Stack Layers off.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

I'm still not quite sure what the original request was about, but probably not that. (Unfortunately the language barrier seems to make things somewhat difficult.)

What, by the way, happens to new 2D objects in a situation where 2D is turned off? Eg. I'm in elevation view and want to create an extrusion.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

Right. I'm sure this is a reasonable solution for certain people (and situations), but having another mode of working is not not necessarily easy for others. In my training, I have quite enough difficulties with Plan, Top, Symbol, Group, Floor, Roof, Pillar, Solid, Path, Profile etc. editing modes. Some allow you to create objects, some not. Some allow certain new objects, others don't.

This, IMHO, is a genuine problem: the user interface is actually very complex and confusing. Maybe our good Dr. Moriarty was right?

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

Stack Layers might be OK for viewing a model, but it's completely useless for working on it.

It would be better to be able to turn off 2D and still have a file that is usable.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

Agree - in fact, I put a 2d/3d mode request on the wish list some time ago - and people told me, "just enable Stack Layers" to clear 2d objects from the screen!

I continue to think that a keystroke command to toggle between 2d & 3d, 3d only, and 2d only would be very helpful in many situations.

Edited by P Retondo

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Sign in to follow this  

 

7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114

 

© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

×
×
  • Create New...