Jump to content
  • 13
Markus Barrera-Kolb

Clip Cube: voids at overlapping solids

Question

VW still displays overlapping solids as voids at the Clip Cube cut plane. While this may be useful if you're trying to eliminate unintentional overlaps, often it's simply too time consuming to correct all of these in your model, and it would be great to have a Clip Cube option to display these overlaps as solid.

Screen Shot 2017-09-20 at 07.54.50.png

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I am bumping this.  I know there are several threads asking for this. It has to be a bug - there is no workflow I can imagine where that would be the intended or desired result. It seems like it should not be that difficult to fix, but it must be as it has stuck around for a longgg time. 


I was watching @Jim Wilson's demo on clip cube viewports and all I could see were the voids created by the foundation and ground.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

Would be even nicer to be able to ‘right click’ on these voids, and see a contextual menu saying ‘resolve junction...’

which then you can select:

’- trim to floor’

’- trim to slab’ .... etc

And Vectorworks automatically does the geometrical resolution for you.

(instead of having to switch back to plan view, double click into slab, and then modify vertex, which is a multi step manual process you have to do yourself)

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
15 hours ago, Amorphous said:

Would be even nicer to be able to ‘right click’ on these voids, and see a contextual menu saying ‘resolve junction...’

which then you can select:

’- trim to floor’

’- trim to slab’ .... etc

And Vectorworks automatically does the geometrical resolution for you.

(instead of having to switch back to plan view, double click into slab, and then modify vertex, which is a multi step manual process you have to do yourself)

This would be the only reason I can think of to show these voids, if VW allowed you to resolve them.  Otherwise, better to simply show it as solid.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
45 minutes ago, Kevin McAllister said:

That said, I just did a quick survey of what types of voids I could find in a project where I used a few stock elements. There are some voids and most of them aren't from my modelling.


THIS kind of thing I really want to focus on. I'd like to identify all the various areas used have run into where they don't have enough control over the geometry interaction to properly address these, without ruining their design or making them bend over backwards in the first place.

For anyone else who has seen another object or object interaction that does this, please list them and I'll start compiling things for a formal submittal.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

From a completely naive point of view (I am not a programmer) I don't quite understand why it would need a 'bandage' solution. I imagine that in the broadest sense the computer assesses each part of the cut plane and decides 'solid present here' or 'solid not present here' and then colours it red, or not, accordingly. It must also detect 'more than one solid present here', because it fills those areas differently (ie. not) compared to the areas where there's a single solid. So why can't it, when it finds those portions simply ask 'do you want me to colour them in or not'?

 

Is it just the outcome of some kind of maths thing, where the programme doesn't actually 'think' about it? Like, -1 x -1 = 1 makes sense mathematically but not intuitively to most people?

1 minute ago, Jim Wilson said:


THIS kind of thing I really want to focus on. I'd like to identify all the various areas used have run into where they don't have enough control over the geometry interaction to properly address these, without ruining their design or making them bend over backwards in the first place.

For anyone else who has seen another object or object interaction that does this, please list them and I'll start compiling things for a formal submittal.

 

The stair tool is a disaster in section mode! I'm sure you know that already.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
1 hour ago, Jim Wilson said:

Include a method of editing, either in Annotations of a viewport or in another viewport editing mode entirely, the actual cut section graphics that could persist between viewport updates. Effectively bringing a 2D Components for Hybrid Objects logic to the situation, where users can put the perfect geometry in place once, and not have to edit it again unless extreme changes were made to the model.

 

Something like this potentially could be very useful, and ideally I'd like to see it incorporate similar type of edit to elements in elevation beyond the section. As I've complained about before, VW offers no solution for how to fix elevational linework in viewports.

 

(I also can see that this could be a horribly complicated feature to implement nicely. Glad it's not my job to work out how to do it 👍)

 

What I'd also say: for me (and others might disagree) things like wall components don't work well enough in standard section viewports to be really useful. I almost never have them shown in 'public' section drawings; it's just too much hassle to make all the junctions correct, if even possible. I do use wall components to keep track of things like the overall thickness of wall buildups, and perhaps to provide reference lines for details that I trace off, but in general, at the moment if I'm showing any sectional detail, it is drawn manually in 2D anyway. Because from a construction point of view, these junctions are often critically important, and there's no way I'm letting VW decide it automatically, or portray it 'near enough' for me, even on GA type drawings which aren't supposed to be used for reference for junction details - because if you draw it indicatively there's always a chance someone will build it literally. So, on sections I turn off all wall or roof components, and junction details are done separately, in 2D.

 

Is it even possible to write a CAD/BIM programme that is flexible enough to show all these junctions properly without it becoming so complex that it takes longer to model it than just to draw the details longhand? Have other packages managed it? If VW did get to that stage that would be great, because I'd love to have all of my info reliably contained in one 3d model, at all levels of detail. But it seems to me that's a long way off.

 

What all this leads to is that the idea of having a kind of 2D overlay onto sections/elevations generated from the model, if implemented nicely, could allow me (and I suspect others) to have an improved version of the workflow we already use, in practice (that is, 3d basic model, plus 2d details not very perfectly integrated). It would, in other words be very useful indeed but only if implemented in a way that was really robust.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

My opinion is that section viewport and clipcube viewport must be considerated the same target. Both of them allows the architect to explain better a model. I’m not sure i understood correctly but on the live facebook session the answer to the voids problem it was “is not a render problem, so this is not a problem”.

sorry man, my not very good english not allow me to be perfectly kind but:

1) there is no reason to considerate this voids an option. They must be hidden. Try to think if you draw with hand: will you represent a perspective section whit voids? Every single architect or client on this planet it would have the same idea: NO! if the voids remain, there remains a problem to be solved. For clients, for architects.

2) “model every geometry correctly”. Really? So if this is the question, why do not you cancel the feature from section viewport? Will the modeler choose between a perfect model with a clip cube render or unperfect model for section viewport? Are you sure that actually vw allow to model every geometry- architecture component, BIM element or similar?

Be focused on this thinks because all user are growing up in modeling  and rendering. these problems tell a story away from the needs of architects who always look to other alternatives. I'm afraid that if you do not solve this thing it can be a boomerang. 

 

I wish you good work and hope to see something on better way.

 

Z. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
16 hours ago, line-weight said:

 

Something like this potentially could be very useful, and ideally I'd like to see it incorporate similar type of edit to elements in elevation beyond the section. As I've complained about before, VW offers no solution for how to fix elevational linework in viewports.

 

(I also can see that this could be a horribly complicated feature to implement nicely. Glad it's not my job to work out how to do it 👍)

 

What I'd also say: for me (and others might disagree) things like wall components don't work well enough in standard section viewports to be really useful. I almost never have them shown in 'public' section drawings; it's just too much hassle to make all the junctions correct, if even possible. I do use wall components to keep track of things like the overall thickness of wall buildups, and perhaps to provide reference lines for details that I trace off, but in general, at the moment if I'm showing any sectional detail, it is drawn manually in 2D anyway. Because from a construction point of view, these junctions are often critically important, and there's no way I'm letting VW decide it automatically, or portray it 'near enough' for me, even on GA type drawings which aren't supposed to be used for reference for junction details - because if you draw it indicatively there's always a chance someone will build it literally. So, on sections I turn off all wall or roof components, and junction details are done separately, in 2D.

 

Is it even possible to write a CAD/BIM programme that is flexible enough to show all these junctions properly without it becoming so complex that it takes longer to model it than just to draw the details longhand? Have other packages managed it? If VW did get to that stage that would be great, because I'd love to have all of my info reliably contained in one 3d model, at all levels of detail. But it seems to me that's a long way off.

 

What all this leads to is that the idea of having a kind of 2D overlay onto sections/elevations generated from the model, if implemented nicely, could allow me (and I suspect others) to have an improved version of the workflow we already use, in practice (that is, 3d basic model, plus 2d details not very perfectly integrated). It would, in other words be very useful indeed but only if implemented in a way that was really robust.

 

Totaly agree

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
24 minutes ago, Zeno said:

My opinion is that section viewport and clipcube viewport must be considerated the same target.

 

^ I agree with this. I feel that any time you're cutting through the model and displaying the cut edge in some form its a section, regardless of the view you're presenting it in. There need to be ways to make the graphic language the same.

 

Kevin

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
37 minutes ago, Zeno said:

I’m not sure i understood correctly but on the live facebook session the answer to the voids problem it was “is not a render problem, so this is not a problem”.


It is not at all that it is not a problem, just not one that we should try fixing from the direction of Rendering, it's something we should be fixing through other methods. Mainly cleaning up how out geometry interacts and how many of our major Plugin Objects are constructed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

As I said in the teaser thread,

I would welcome any possible void-eliminating-optimization solution.

 

But I also like a check-for sloppy-modeling clash detection system - but

for other reasons. I have access to a clash detection system elsewhere

and think it is a very useful Feature for BIM Modeling.

You could do the same in Solibri and such but I think that would require

a Solibri Pro Version ?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
2 hours ago, Zeno said:

My opinion is that section viewport and clipcube viewport must be considerated the same target.

 

Real Sections most time come with a speed penalty.

So I would still vote for a faster simpler "fake" solution for a DL Modeling

assistant like Clip Cube.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
11 hours ago, zoomer said:

 

Real Sections most time come with a speed penalty.

So I would still vote for a faster simpler "fake" solution for a DL Modeling

assistant like Clip Cube.

 

 

@zoomer We agree. Really need urgent speeding up of section viewports. It is really dragging back our productivity. 

 

(as we speak, on a Saturday morning here, one of our colleagues is complaining a simple viewport we are rendering has now taken close to 5 minutes)

 

I created a post about the need to greatly improve sectioning speeds (among other things for productivity). 

 

I know the request is not new, but to us is very important .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

As far as I know,

calculating Sections is one of the few CAD workloads things

that can be spread over multiple processor cores.

 

And it may be still single threadded until VW 2018,

but I am not sure if that was mentioned for VW 2019 with

accelerated view generation and VP improvements or not.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

The more I hear, the more it seems that the healthier solution would be to have a user-enabled option for "just cover it up" AND a UI element that allowed manually editing the resulting auto-generated clipped profile, similar to Annotations. Ideally these two UI elements would operate independently, to let users get both the just-do-it-fast earlier phases of design done, as well as the more final it-must-be-pixel-perfect detail later on. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

Jim: why could be useful to manage manually the voids areas? I can't imagine a process where I need it. And maybe if I need I can use the annotation dialog, but is it not a very professional way..

 

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

Not manage the void areas only, but let users manually add/remove/extend/fill the results of the cut plane completely. Currently Annotations allows this easily for straight-on elevation viewports, but when you're looking at that section plane from an angle, editing in annotations becomes much more annoying. I would think that letting users edit that cut graphics for ALL viewports that shared the same cut location, regardless of how many viewports displayed that same cut from different angles would be faster and more ideal.

The first part of it however would just be a "show solid fill for overlapping geometry" if that is indeed possible, but since that would likely be too heavy handed for final presentations, allowing the user to manually control it provides another layer of "protection" against messy results.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

Manual control would certainly be handy to deal with things that currently cannot be modelled correctly so that there are no errant voids - such as stairs if you want to use the stair tool.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
10 minutes ago, line-weight said:

Manual control would certainly be handy to deal with things that currently cannot be modelled correctly so that there are no errant voids - such as stairs if you want to use the stair tool.

 

Exactly. While many of these voids can and do come from overlapping geometry, there are also rendering engine-unidentifiable voids that can result from plugin objects composed of separated meshes, or clusters of non-combined 3D polygons as you sometimes get from object imports that would require a human eye to identify and repair and I suspect both can be addressed differently, removing as much manual work as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

@Jim Wilson you're basically describing another place to implement the level of detail type feature added in VW2019. Low detail = cover it up, middle detail=show the model and high detail=show the model and augment it. Basically take the new symbol component feature and apply it to cut planes. (I was told it also allows the section component to show the actual cut plus the 2d cut plane component so really this technology already exists.)

 

Please relate them in some way so we don't end up with yet another editing mode 🙂

 

Kevin

 

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.


 

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...