Jump to content
  • 0
nca777

Abandoning VW Again...Software needs fundamental changes!

Question

So, after working with Landmark on several real-world projects for approx 5-6 months and becoming relatively proficient I can confidently assert that the software is woefully unsuitable for a modern landscape architecture workflow!

 

I would strongly suggest, if any admins, managers, or developers are reading this that you seek out Licensed Landscape Architects and have them test the software.  I run a technologically-savvy, progressive design studio  with projects ranging from small, private gardens with highly complex and constrained sites to urban master plans encompassing several dozen city blocks. We follow a professional-standard workflow and best practices. We expect the software (whichever software) to accommodate this workflow, not the other way around. Professionals should not have to adapt their process to software!

 

Here is an abbreviated list of my gripes:

 

2D drafting:
-Innaccurate, clunky, snaps and quick keys are not intuitive!

-Drafting tools do not easily accommodate standard drafting practices, ie tangent radii, offsets from center line, etc.

-Drafting in sketchup is easier, more intuitive and more reliable

-need real-world, intuitive quick keys that make ergonomic sense for fast drafting.

-consider adding scale reference, rotate reference commands. The move tool is clunky and undependable!

-consider adding command line with prompts!

-drafting or modeling roas is virtually impossible with any degree of accuracy

-parking tools are a joke, the way the tool works, like the road tool is at odds with how a road or parking lot are actually laid out.

-Grading should just simply include vertices for user to mannually manipulate proposed contours--professionals dont need automated tools to grade a site! The site modifiers are just a HUGE HUGE Time Suck!

 

I could go on...

 

In general, I want the community here and public to know as well as the managers that VW has cost us an immense amount of unnecessary time and expense over the last few months. Virtually everything we've created in VW has needed to be exported to DWG or some other file format and often redrafted or remodeled completely in order to share with consultants and make accurate documentation!

 

The software development is clearly way, way out of touch with professional needs and needs to go back to the fundamentals or continue to lose market share.

 

The Silver lining--

 

Pretty much the only thing I see VW has going is the fact that it is the only software that actually recognizes the demand for a BIM solution in landscape Architecture. The site modeling tools and general concepts are headed in the right direction. 

 

Other than that--Landmark will be basically taking up space on our hard drives for the time being.

 

Nick

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Recommended Posts

  • 0
3 hours ago, ericjhberg said:

 

Complex is a matter of opinion. I don't think VW is currently built to go straight through without some work arounds; however, I doubt that any work arounds have to be any more complex that any AutoCAD workflow...just different.

 

In my mind, this is not an autocad vs. vectorworks discussion. AutoCAD is not a BIM/SIM tool. That said, we do not use any workarounds in our auotocad workflow. As for a BIM workflow-workaround, our typical process includes AutoCAD + Sketchup. We can model a site multiple times faster than via vectorworks. The only problem(s) with that workflow is in coordination/collaboration, whereby the consultants we typically work with are in BIM/3D and collaborating in 3D as well as the fact that we are working in two separate programs with limited contour modeling options.

 

Thats where vectorworks comes in. Unfortunately, the tools out of the box are woefully lacking for true grading , coordination, and construction documentation.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
On 7/24/2017 at 2:59 PM, nca777 said:

 

In my mind, this is not an autocad vs. vectorworks discussion. AutoCAD is not a BIM/SIM tool. That said, we do not use any workarounds in our auotocad workflow. As for a BIM workflow-workaround, our typical process includes AutoCAD + Sketchup. We can model a site multiple times faster than via vectorworks. The only problem(s) with that workflow is in coordination/collaboration, whereby the consultants we typically work with are in BIM/3D and collaborating in 3D as well as the fact that we are working in two separate programs with limited contour modeling options.

 

Thats where vectorworks comes in. Unfortunately, the tools out of the box are woefully lacking for true grading , coordination, and construction documentation.

 

Whos actually giving my negative rep?? Weird cultish attitude in here. I'm doing some SD level site modeling this morning...mind numbingly slow and unintuitive tools. Its almost as if the VW users and programmers are stubbornly anti-autocad/sketchup. So many commands missing, difficult to use quickly...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
On 07/07/2017 at 11:09 AM, digitalcarbon said:

i use to view landscaping as more of a type of frosting on a cake...

 

however,  i have come to realize that there is a whole other universe once a person steps out of a building.

 

this "universe" connects the buildings entrances with the public road infrastructure & nothing is straight.

 

also, water management is a big deal. if you think designing a roof is important, it pails compared to designing water flow of the land around the building.

 

hence, the tools need to accommodate this flowing non-orthogal universe.

 

currently, i am using 3d polys since the real world seldom works with a parametric paradigm 

 

as for "consider adding command line with prompts!" absolutely not.

 

here are some images that show:

1. existing slabs are not parametric friendly (actual surface made from surveyors elevations)

2. the dtm need to be shaped in a continuous flowing (think water, water ,water) fashion

3. using little "pad" segments to achieve this

4. my wish for ultimate surface control (maybe the slope tool but in a type of 3d continuous mesh surface)595f5c4e5826e_ExistPadFromSurveyors.png.89ff540a58c9758bee4c84c4942dc9fa.png595f5c552a2a0_SwaleNeeded.png.386ec70c296f8e5c0952984eb9c3af29.png595f5c5874dbc_PadsforSwale.png.2b91c62cbc0e1ab1d549ce504b451376.pngSan-Jose-skatepark.jpg.d1fd394544ca43b259e1f1d3c32fee5e.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appreciate this is an old post but I'm just trying to get a handle on the best way to control terrain in a model which relates to real life - i.e. nothing is straight or entirely planar! Am I right in thinking you are using essentially triangulated pads here to control the site levels?  I have an undulating path, curving in various directions and with a cross fall... I have created 2 3d polylines with vertice heights set at the correct (varying levels) - then converted to NURBS and lofted between them, which results in a series of essentially triangulated connected surfaces. I've converted these to 3d poly and used as pad modifiers on site model, with some success. Interested to know if there is a more straightforward method than this as it seems a bit OTT.

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

×