Clip Cube: voids at overlapping solids

[Markus Barrera-Kolb]

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.

[Andy Broomell]

Yes please! I was never sure if this was working-as-designed or a weird bug that's never been addressed.

[Tom Klaber]

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.  

[Amorphous - Julian]

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)

[Thomas Wagensommerer]

The problem is still present in 2019 

[Tom Klaber]

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.

[PVA - Admin]

So let's talk about this issue as it is today and in 2019, with an eye to where we can go from here. I'll start with our reasoning in no particular order for why things are the way they are currently:

1) SECTION viewports, specifically, are the only type of Viewport that properly handles sectioning solids and showing components. The Clip Cube Viewports task is about regular Viewports, not Section Viewports. Many users want Clip Cube to be the be-all-end-all UI element for doing Section work, myself included, but currently this is not the case.

2) OpenGL and Renderworks modes do not have a way of showing Wall, Slab, Roof etc components properly. Again, this is the realm of Hidden Line and Section Viewports only. So, even if we did implement a method of "paving over" gaps where overlapping geometry is displayed, it would ONLY work when the cut plane was going to show as a single solid fill attribute. If we eventually wanted to upgrade OpenGL and Renderworks modes to display component graphics, this paving over feature would immediately collapse and produce another messy visual as it does now when solids are intersecting. 

3) If we wanted to expand support for various rendering engines in the future (a VERY common request as many of you have seen) then this paving-over workaround we could theoretically apply to the back end would have to be implemented manually by us for EACH of those engines, resulting in us a lot of engineering time maintaining a bandage. A bandage that might not even do well enough to make users happy in the first place, and a bandage that falls apart when you get into the realm of showing component graphics anyway.

Now, that said, here are some ideas I've heard for other ways to address this issue:

 

Alert the user about intersecting solids before rendering, or add a "Check Geometry" utility that could be run at will. This would not only benefit architectural sections, but doing solids modeling and working with 3D printing as well. Ideally when it comes to plugin object, Vectorworks could offer automated solutions (offering to adjust component top and bottom offsets, align elements to layers/levels, etc) to repair any common scenarios.

 

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.

 

At the end of the day, in this particular example file, I simply had a messy model. (For example, I had classes where wall objects used as placeholder footers in a previous phase of that models design were still visible, i should have made them invisible before recording, my fault entirely. However, there were other less quick-fix elements like how walls were connected to slabs that would need to be more intelligently examined and corrected.) IDEALLY Vectorworks would be able to smooth things over and allow the user to work as they liked, but there are only so many scenarios we can lock in where "X is always preferable to Y" as the correct choice for Vectorworks to make, any eventually the user is either going to have to either edit the model itself, or manually adjust the resulting section cut in some way anyway. 

With all that out there on the table, let's discuss specifics. Please do call out anything I have stated above either to refute any of the claims or to propose alternate solutions. We are absolutely listening closely on this one, because software should make things as easy as possible, as long as it's possible.

 

[Kevin McAllister]

I normally model most things from scratch and don't use the clip cube that much (mostly because you can't snap to the cut it generates or extract the surfaces). The reason behind not addressing the voids makes a lot of sense to me. I worked with the clip cube recently and actually used the voids to find errors in the model. 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. Here's some examples -

 

Voids in geometry generated by the Door PIO.

 

Voids in furniture from the Libraries

 

Voids in a cabinet generated by the Cabinet PIO

 

My final example is where a solid addition doesn't compute properly (file attached). The hollow geometry on the left is the solid addition. The sectioned geometry on the right is before combining it into a solid addition.

 

So I guess if the intent is to show correct geometry and I don't want voids these other issues need to be addressed instead?

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin

 

 

 

Solid Addition Voids.vwx

[PVA - Admin]

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.

[line-weight]

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.

[line-weight]

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.

[zeno]

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. 

[zeno]

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

[Kevin McAllister]

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

[PVA - Admin]

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.

[zoomer]

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 ?

 

 

[zoomer]

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.

[Amorphous - Julian]

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 .

 

 

[zoomer]

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.

[Tom Klaber]

I am not sure what the ultimate answer is, but I know the answer can't be that VW demands absolute perfect modeling.  Especially early in a project, where a conceptual or simple section is most useful, sloppy modeling is a very time effective.  The beauty of the section class is that it glosses over the overlapping.  It would be extremely useful if the clip cube could do the same thing. 

[PVA - Admin]

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. 

[zeno]

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..

 

[PVA - Admin]

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.

[line-weight]

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.

[PVA - Admin]

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.

[Kevin McAllister]

@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