Dieter @ DWorks Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 What's the recommended best practice to show both the existing and the new dtm, both in their own viewport, on one sheet layer? I still can't figure this out. We only can't have one dtm in a file and must choose to show the existing, new or both of the dtm at any moment. But I think it needs to be possible to show those conditions in different viewports on the same sheet layer in one document without the need to alter the 'view' of the dtm on the design layers. Quote Link to comment
CipesDesign Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 You can Show Proposed and Existing at the same time in 2d (Top/Plan). You can define the attributes for major/minor contours for Existing and Proposed. I generally show Existing Dashed and Proposed Solid. One caveat is the Text/Labels... In the attached screenshot I have added readable text (annotations) for the Proposed Topography. In this case, we had a geotech consultant who provided a much more clear and detailed grading plan... So what I showed on my Site Plan was a little redundant and somewhat cursory... Quote Link to comment
Vectorworks, Inc Employee Tamsin Slatter Posted December 6, 2012 Vectorworks, Inc Employee Share Posted December 6, 2012 I concur with Peter, but would add that you can create a Site Model Snapshot. This is a copy of the model which has frozen graphic settings (e.g. existing or proposed, mesh solid, 2D contours etc). It is a snapshot of settings, not of the development of the model, so if it's set to show proposed, it will continue to update as you change the main model. The Snapshot is created on the Object Info palette with Create Site Model Snapshot. Once created, put it on a different layer. Then, one viewport can include the main model and another can show the snapshot. Quote Link to comment
Bryan G. Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 DWorks, Tamsin has it. I use the snapshot all the time for this. Quote Link to comment
ray isaacs Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 as peter, tasmin and bryan point out, the dtm is settings and snapshots are very efficient ways to do things that are extemely clumsy in other programs (incl revit and archicad). bimguy, you are making an argument that i have made directly to vw. they need to invest in making the dtm tool more accurate, more workable and versatile, and less buggy to the point that more professionals appreciate it. it is one of the two main reasons that i--so far--stick with vw. cheers, ray Quote Link to comment
CipesDesign Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Not too long ago I (and pretty much everyone) was 1) getting a printed, scaled topographic survey; 2) using a scale ruler to hand/eye measure along a chosen line (section line) to determine the distance from contour to contour to contour, etc. etc.; 3) using a slide bar (or graph paper) to draw the (2d) line that represented that particular section through the site... Then repeating that process many many times to end up with a bunch of sections through various critical portions of the bldg and site.... While the Site Model can at times be fussy, it sure beats the you-know-what out of that!! PS: Oh, and for 3d there was always the trusty old foam board cutout contours... Quote Link to comment
Bryan G. Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Bimguy and Ray, I too would like to see major improvements in the DTM and definitely more toward the engineering side. As A landscape designer I may not work the way you do. but I often incorporate many or all of the things you are suggesting(or try to!) You are right that VW has left out the engineering side of things. this would be a massive market for them I am sure and have always wondered why thy don't dive in. Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted December 7, 2012 Author Share Posted December 7, 2012 I once tried the snapshot feature, but I couldn't figure it out because it was changing etc... But I think I understand it know. But what I find strange is that when rendering a section viewport, the DTM recalculates and because it's really huge, that takes a lot of time. Is this normal? Quote Link to comment
CipesDesign Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Yes, it takes a really long time to render SVP's which contain Site Models. My trick is to 1) put the Site Model in it's own Layer (or Class); 2) Render the SVP; 3) Enter the Annotations and trace over the grade line. Then for subsequent render of the SVP I make the Site Model Layer (or Class) invisible. Of course this requires a redo each time a significant change is made to the Site Model... Quote Link to comment
ray isaacs Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) with site sections, i do pretty much what peter described. seems a little silly, drawing a section over a cut model, but it goes quickly and is cleaner and easier to control than the settings in the section viewport and classes; and once the dtm class is turned off, the svp is simpler and regenerates faster. important distinction: this applies to simple, orthographic sections; section perspectives or section axons are another story. with the dtm snapshots, i often make an image or pdf, then re-import it. that too sounds a little silly, but it preserves things like existing conditions/slope analysis, etc., that shouldn't change. i'm no computer engineer, but i think at least some of the dtm problems are do to limited internal memory of vw, and hopefully will be resolved when vw finishes migrating to 64bit--am i naive? cheers, ray Edited December 8, 2012 by ray isaacs Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted December 8, 2012 Author Share Posted December 8, 2012 Yes, it takes a really long time to render SVP's which contain Site Models. My trick is to 1) put the Site Model in it's own Layer (or Class); 2) Render the SVP; 3) Enter the Annotations and trace over the grade line. Then for subsequent render of the SVP I make the Site Model Layer (or Class) invisible. Of course this requires a redo each time a significant change is made to the Site Model... I could do that after I created the 54 sections of the dtm the first time, But we still need to get the road that will alter the dtm and then decide how we will alter all lots. I wished we already had VW 2013 so I wouldn't have to wait while rendering. They promised our version on October 30, but as I hear now, it will be January or later... A case of bad VW advertising.... Quote Link to comment
23hour Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Everytime I try to create a site model snapshot VW crashes - I've done as much as I can to simplify polygons, adjusted file settings to largest scale..matched scales..eliminated unused classes.. just dont know... I'll try it on a tiny site; but i really wanted 1000m x 1000m site Any suggestions? Quote Link to comment
jnr Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I concur: The DTM sucks. Its bloated, the interface is clunky and has not been upgraded in forever. It blows up, it generates unnecessary geometry sending the file size into the stratosphere. A 2d polyline to 3D polygon to DTM on a simple curve can quadruple the data points-unecessarily. yes it can be argued that we used to do this with slide rules and an exacto blade, which I would agree with if this module had not been around unchanged for as long as it has. There has been ample opportunity to improve it. The company is hell bent on more bells and whistles, while the code bloats; sacrificing stability for bling. And I haven't even started talking about the stair tool yet! C'mon Mac PRO. Quote Link to comment
Dillon Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 It seems like support for hyper threading is what is needed. Currently VW only uses one of my 8 cores when it does its calculations. It routinely maxes out--especially when I use the site model. It is so frustrating watching the Activity Monitor. 7/8ths of my processing power sit idle while VW runs out of processing power and crashes. The code could continue to be bloated as long as it could take advantage of what is now completely standard chip architecture. At this point, it is a bit like I have a Ferrari, with no stick shift. The car could go really fast, but I can't get out of first gear. Dillon Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.