Architectural Elevations

[JoshW]

This is not just a Vectorworks issue, this is a "any BIM/3D platform" issue. Can we please get a render mode that will display elevations the way that architects would like them displayed?!

Sketchup has the ability to do this. How can a group of 5 stoners in Colorado figure this out but all the "big boys" fall flat on their faces with it? The 2016 Renderworks features are really nice, Revit when combined with 3DS makes amazing videos and still images that look absolutely life like. ArchiCAD has some great realistic renderings. Not one of these programs can produce a clean crisp working drawing quality elevation with correct lineweights and a progressive depth of field.

Rant over, back to my morning coffee.

[PVA - Jim]

Post images of the ideal rendering mode you mean, please. I can submit them directly.

[JoshW]

PM sent.

[PVA - Jim]

Thank you!

[jmartinarch]

Josh,

We are curious...can we see the elevation you have in mind.

[Patrick Fritsch]

It would be usefull if we could apply sort of the same control parameters of an auto-hybrid object but on our building elevations. Control options like thiner and grey lines for objects that are further, wrap foreground objects with thick line, etc.

[AlanW]

I think and hope the elevation you are talking about are elevations such as the construction drawings. Other programs as I understand have the ability to control the line weights based on the depth of field, so the front ones are heavy and the ones in the background are light.

So there is no going into annotations and tracing over the lines to get the black and white presentation that is required for construction and most Council submissions.

This is where the program falls down, you have created all this 3d and then for sections you have to redraw them and Elevation you have to draw over most. Add ons like stairs, handrails etc don't seamlessly unite in elevations or sections.

Getting this step resolved would go a long way to allowing the work flow to be seamless from concept to construction.

[Neil Barman]

+1 Indeed to JoshW and Alan Woodwell's request.

[billtheia]

I, too, would love VW to do this.

Maybe they can just hire the stoners in Colorado

[taliho]

Yes - add me to the "love to have it" list....

[ChrisA]

I too would like this.

It would also be nice for a cohesive tutorial on going from 3d world to the 2d. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on the 3d aspects of VW when ultimately it all ends up 2d. I find that I spend a lot of time layering 2d information over top of the 3d when creating CDs.

[zoomer]

I think I will need some example images to understand what you are asking for ....

[TDWrks]

Bummer, was hoping 2016 would finally address this as 3d workflow has become more and more important, yet 2d con docs still represent the bulk of the end product in the arch industry.

I've been requesting this since about VW 8 (that's 8, not 2008) and have seen similar posts many times over the years.

Two separate pieces for me:

1) the ability to read depth in 2d elevations and sections by varied linewts (lighter as they recede)

2) the ability to "profile" and indicate elements with heavier line at the perimeter of a building form.

The process of "doctoring" to create linewt variations within annotation layers is a waste of time and unacceptable (especially with live sections etc). might as well go back to the old "convert to lines" workflow and completely dissociate the 3d from the 2d.

I agree with previous posts suggesting B/W and grayscale could be solutions--

if clean printable grayscale textures could be controlled (like a class override, or hybrid texture) and used to describe materials in 2d while simultaneously providing colored versions in 3d views I could do away with hatches altogether. Of course I would then want these textures to lighten as they recede in the back ground too.

Many of us old guys insist that its not just an artistic convention, but a way for our drawings to "read" properly and lends additional clarity. SU uses fog to create the desired affect and while not a change in linewt or profiling, can effectively describe depth. I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with elevations that are all of mono line wt (even tho some of my younger colleagues wonder what it matters).

Until the time 3d drawings can be submitted for permitting, architects will continue to need 2d plans, elevations, & sections to adequately describe proposed building projects and as clearly as possible including differentiating elements that occur in the foreground vs. background.

[AlanW]

Until the time 3d drawings can be submitted for permitting, architects will continue to need 2d plans, elevations, & sections to adequately describe proposed building projects and as clearly as possible including differentiating elements that occur in the foreground vs. background.

I complete agree with you. There is a huge gap between the 3D model and producing the construction and approval drawings in VW. As I have mentioned previously the program seems to be going down the route of 3D rather than Architectural Documentation. Especially with the marionette aspect of the program.

There are so many aspects that are almost there but wont work together seamlessly, like stairs, slabs, ramps, handrails etc they all do their bit but put them together and a lot of stiching and patching is required to hide the junction or missing fills etc.

Maybe next year the focus might be on Architectural Documentation.

[twk]

There are so many aspects that are almost there but wont work together seamlessly, like stairs, slabs, ramps, handrails etc they all do their bit but put them together and a lot of stiching and patching is required to hide the junction or missing fills etc.

Maybe next year the focus might be on Architectural Documentation.

++++1 for maximum development focus of Architectural Objects + Documentation

[lupin]

Out of interest, do other BIM programs have elevation line weights sorted out?

Does anyone have a good method for VW?

I was thinking to try making all my line weights minimal except for the section class then adding heavy weight line work in annotations, but I'm not looking forward to the experiment!  Especially as I suspect it won't work that well...

An efficient BIM documentation flow would be very useful.  I'm sure it would generate lots of VW sales!

[Tom Klaber]

Revit does now have a line-weight by depth for their elevations.  There are a couple of threads where this was asked for in VW.  It is needed.  I do see a future where architectural sets are replaced by simply handing over the model - but that is another ten years out.  In the meantime, we still need to create traditional drawings.  It has held us back when we look at the BIM ROI - that we have to model - then we have to redraw what the model produces to make it legible.  

[jakez]

Does VW 2017 do anything to address this issue?

Sometimes while outlining 3D "design" drawings that I've worked and reworked with clients, I think I must be doing things the hard way. But that's how everyone is doing it, hey?

Edited November 8, 2016 by jakez

[Christian Fekete]

Yes it seems there is a disconnect between 3D modeling (getting better) and 2D graphic standards. I sometimes think that the BIM reporting aspect of VW is worth the headaches of resolving the 2D/3D issues but then I realize that the quality of Sketchup Layout really without BIM is largely satisfying. The balance in favor of VW is the Sheet Layer which is right in the same application but then again, you have to update the viewports! Rant over, going back to voting.

[Cadplan Architecture]

It looks like this elevation rendering style is still unresolved or have I missed something? Did VW come back on it as it's well over a year now and it would be so good to have this function?

[Tom Klaber]

On 11/22/2016 at 9:50 AM, Cadplan Architecture said:

It looks like this elevation rendering style is still unresolved or have I missed something? Did VW come back on it as it's well over a year now and it would be so good to have this function?

 

Not resolved yet.  It seems like an obvious need, but it I would bet we are still a few years away from having it.   Sketch-Up has a "Depth Cue" but it does not work so well.  Revit did release this function in its most recent release.  I have no idea what technology is needed to detect the distance from the camera and then re-assign lightweights, but it seems complicated. 

[anton5]

hm, any updates on this?

 

still struggling with normal elevations to look the way we want them,

and some render settings (especially planning ones, where we need the bricks to show nice and crisp but with shadows) are still struggling,

 

kind regards a

[lupin]

It would be easy I think to make it work a lot better with a couple of tweaks to the Advanced Properties settings in Section Viewports.

 

It's almost there but not quite, within "Section plane" and "Objects beyond section plane" settings.

Unfortunately, hatch settings and pen settings can't properly be individually controlled - they are entangled.

In "Objects beyond section plane"  if you select a class (e.g.: a class called "ano-elevation" with a light lineweight) for "linestyle" it also applies to your hatch pen settings, colour and all.

I've posted this as a wishlist item in more detail.

 

My only workaround is to have two section viewports overlaid - one with my standard hidden line settings, and another on top of it with "display objects beyond section plane" unchecked, and a class (mine's called "section-no fill") with no fill and a heavy pen weight assigned to the section lines via "Section plane" settings in the "Advanced properties" of the section viewport.

This means I don't have to manually draw over my section viewport to heavy up the section lines.

However, two viewports is a bit awkward for annotations and changes...

 

Apropos of the 3D textures and 2D hatches issue raised above, this can be pretty much sorted out if you assign a "Surface hatch" to your 3D textures.  This way, you get your surface hatches in hidden line mode and the 3D texture in open GL.

No need to draw them on your viewports.

It works pretty well, although sometimes orientation can be tricky.

For more sharper, more architectural open GL images, you can have Hidden line on as a foreground render setting.

 

PS in case it helps anyone like me, I finally worked out that you can get the site model fill to read properly in section viewports by assigning a hatch to its class as a class override (annoyingly, a straight colour fill won't work).

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by lupin

[rDesign]

@lupin here’s an old wishlist thread relating to what I believe you are requesting, Elevations and Depth-cueing:

 

 

[lupin]

Thank you!

It's close - elevation depth control would also be great!

My wish is closely related, I'd like to be able to at minimum have thick section lines only while still retaining the fill and line weights of all other elements (including the default fills of my objects in section).

With elevation depth control, If I've understood properly, drawing a mask as an annotation to fade out parts that are further away is an effective option (but it's still annoying to have to adjust it manually each time the model is changed)🙂

[Tom Klaber]

@lupin You can control the section cut plan separately from the rest of the section without having to overlay Viewports.  If you are just tweaking the section cut line thickness that can be class controlled in the viewport options.