Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
mpkeane

Plant Tool

Question

I am a landscape architect, and as such use the Plant Tool a lot. The way the plant symbol (2D, Plan View) control is set up now, I feel, is incredibly troublesome to use so much so I have considered not using VW. Because the plant symbol cannot be resized in the OIP, and because the plant information is directly associated with the plant symbol, a designer needs to have a separate and unique symbol for every single plant they could ever use at every possible size!! One quickly realizes this means having hundreds if not thousands of separate and unique symbols. Impossible.

What would much better, I feel, is this. When we used to hand-draft, we only used a limited set of symbols on our plans: a few each for deciduous shrubs and trees, coniferous shrubs and trees, herbaceous plants, ground covers, and a few specialty symbols. The total number required might be around 20 unique symbols. Beyond that, one cannot distinguish between them on a plan anyway.

So what is required is a basic set of around 20 symbols, which could differ for each designer.

A database of plant information would be built separately from the plant symbols.

When a designer uses the Plant Tool, they would locate a given symbol on the plan. Then through the OIP, they could set the size of the plant in question. One would not need, for instance, to have a separate symbol for an 2", 4" and 6" caliper Japanese maple.

Also through the OIP (or by double-clicking the plant symbol and bringing up a text box), the designer could either manually enter information about the plant (type in: Acer plamatum 'Bloodgood') or, by entering a alpha-numeric code, they could link the text box to the plant database and automatically infill that information.

In summary, my suggestion for a new Plant Tool is one that has these two features:

1) The size of the plant symbol can be modified through the OIP.

2) The plant information database would be separate from the plant symbol and linked through information entered in the Tag Text box.

Does anyone else agree with these suggestions?

Marc

Edited by mpkeane

Share this post


Link to post

2 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Yes, most definitely. This is one of the BIG weaknesses of VW.

All the main competitors of VW (AutoCAD, Revit, etc....) all have more to offer for basic landscaping design. As the distinctions between an architect, landscape architect, designer, etc... are becoming more and more irrelevant, the tools need to adapt as well.

It may be that by stretching VW into separate products

( Architect, Landmark, Designer....) weakens the program overall.

I think if Nemetschek purchased Sketchup and integrated it into VWs - those other PC programs that EVERYBODY else uses couldn't come close....

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
It may be that by stretching VW into separate products

( Architect, Landmark, Designer....) weakens the program overall.

And, this splits up the user base. The current modules require fingerprinting to prevent feature sharing across modules. I say just offer Designer w/ Renderworks. Maybe at a price between current industry mods and full designer. Keep the separate interfaces if that's helpful to anyone. Offer Education/RW version as is, and Fundamentals/RW, but at lower price or include some of the essential features - full pdf support, Nav Palette, a few others. (Right, as if I know how to run the company!)

-B

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
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.

×