Jump to content
line-weight

Site model - understanding "existing" and "proposed"

Recommended Posts

Just in the process of trying out the "site model" tool for the first time.

 

If I understand correctly, embedded within a "site model" object is the information about the "existing" landscape, plus modifications to that, creating the "proposed" landscape.

 

And I can control which set of information is displayed - existing or proposed - in the object's OIP.

 

But doesn't that mean that I then can't have each set of information displayed simultaneously within the same drawing?

 

For example, say I create two viewports on a sheet layer, each a plan view of the site model. I want one to show the existing landscape and the other to show the proposed landscape. How can i do that? I can't change the visibility per viewport - I have to go and change it in the object's settings. But then those changes are going to show in both of my viewports, because they are both looking at the same object.

 

Am I misunderstanding something here?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

OIP>Create Site Model Snapshot.  The snapshot is a static version of the site model at time the snapshot is created. It contains/displays attributes, modifier results, and settings at time of creation, including the existing or proposed status.  The Snapshot location is coincident with location where the source site model was created. IE, if the site model was never moved, then the snapshot will be coincident with the site model. But if the site model was created at Point A and then moved  to point B, the snapshot will generate at Point A.

 

For Sheet Layer Viewports, one workflow is to make a snapshot of the existing status of the site model, place the snapshot on a new design layer created for the snapshot and any section lines associated with the existing model.  If the existing condition of the site model changes, replace the old snapshot with an updated one, and update the associated VPs.  Use the Make VPs of the proposed version directly from the site model (rather than a snapshot). Or place sequential snapshots on new design layers as the proposed model evolves.

 

Probably lots of other workflows for this.

 

-B

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the explanation @Benson Shaw

 

A funny setup; ie. I can't think of anything else in VW that works on that kind of principle. Is it something to do with the typical workflow of a landscape designer?

 

Seems to me like it would be more useful, if the model contains both existing and proposed conditions, to be able to switch between which condition is shown in a viewport. So that as I add detail to the "existing" model (perhaps after getting extra survey info) it automatically updates. Instead of having to go and create a new "snapshot" each time I add or change info.

 

Does the same principle apply if, in one viewport I want to see the site model as a mesh and in another as extruded contours, for example? Create a snapshot for each, and replace them both if I edit info in the site model?

Share this post


Link to post

There is facility to show "existing", "proposed" or "existing & proposed" in 2d plan. You can adjust this in the OIP.

 

Also in the site model settings you can edit graphic properties. by default extg & proposed contours are on the site model class but you can put them on their own classes and then toggle them on or off in your viewports.

 

Not sure this will do exactly what you want but worth checking out.

Edit:

My work around is simply to have two models - an extg and a proposed. If additional data needs to be added for the extg model I simply past-in-place to the proposed model source data also.

Edited by Boh

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, line-weight said:

Does the same principle apply if, in one viewport I want to see the site model as a mesh and in another as extruded contours, for example? Create a snapshot for each, and replace them both if I edit info in the site model?

@line-weightYes, same principal, separate snapshot for each status. The several snapshots could be placed on same design layer and classed separately, so VP overrides could show desired features and modes of the site model.  I agree it's kind of funny setup, but have no better proposal. There would be drawbacks for almost any way to do this.  As @Bohsuggests, separate site models? 

 

-B

Share this post


Link to post

I also want to point out that, in defense of current system, the snapshots can act as history of design development.  Properly classed and layered snapshots can represent many versions and options of both exist and proposed.  The site model itself does not have a history to access if an earlier version is required.

 

 

-B

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Benson Shaw said:

@line-weightYes, same principal, separate snapshot for each status. The several snapshots could be placed on same design layer and classed separately, so VP overrides could show desired features and modes of the site model.  I agree it's kind of funny setup, but have no better proposal. There would be drawbacks for almost any way to do this.  As @Bohsuggests, separate site models? 

 

-B

 

Yeah, I think I might just go with separate models, because that fits best with how I usually set up drawings - I usually draw up the "as existing" on one layer, duplicate it to another layer which becomes "as proposed" (and often multiple "as proposed" layers over time as I go through different versions/options).

 

That method effectively is me taking "snapshots" to preserve history - and a more useful method than the site model snapshots as those layers can obviously also contain all the other objects in a drawing, not just the site model.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Boh said:

Also in the site model settings you can edit graphic properties. by default extg & proposed contours are on the site model class but you can put them on their own classes and then toggle them on or off in your viewports.

 

Ah right - I'll have a bit of a look at whether there's any benefit of doing it by class like this.

Share this post


Link to post

@line-weight - More thinking.  Two site models can make sense in some of situations.  But this practice loses cut/fill information and probably some other features that might be important during design or construction.  Perhaps your proposed model can be created as the usual hybrid with most current existing and proposed, but never display the existing from this combo model.  Use the other, "existing only" model for vps exclusively associated with the existing status of the site.

 

-B

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Benson Shaw said:

@line-weight - More thinking.  Two site models can make sense in some of situations.  But this practice loses cut/fill information and probably some other features that might be important during design or construction.  Perhaps your proposed model can be created as the usual hybrid with most current existing and proposed, but never display the existing from this combo model.  Use the other, "existing only" model for vps exclusively associated with the existing status of the site.

 

How does this way loses cut/fill info? I would suggest having two DTM both created with the exactly the same (existing) source data. The extg site model would have no modifiers applied to it and would just be used for as-existing plans/elevations/sections.

The other would be the proposed site model which would have site modifiers applied and thereby cut/fill calcs are possible. The option to show the "existing & proposed" contours in top/plan view is also available.

 

As you say though the DTM snapshots does keep a history of changes as well as the opportunity to show the DTM in different styles. I guess they could also good for complex files to just import a snap shot of the DTM held in a seperate file as the DTM's can bulk up a file if complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Boh said:

How does this way loses cut/fill info?

@BohI think we are saying the same thing. I was just trying to make a distinction regarding an idea presented above which was to develop one DTM that is exclusivly existing conditions (but can display in the different modes, etc), plus another DTM that is exclusively proposed conditions (no cut/fill, because no existing). As you and I both indicate, the 2nd DTM should probably have both exist and proposed per the standard DTM work flow.  Normally, I would just use the standard workflow, single DTM, and create the snapshots as records of design progress.

 

Which brings up questions of design management. Another standard work flow for preserving design history is to duplicate entire the project folder (vwx, excel, word, etc, contacts, schedule, etc) at each phase, or even at each major decision point. Rename all items in the new folder,  (date, rev#, ??) then archive the older folder and start working in the new duplicate files.  The collection of project folders represent the design history and allow compare or redo when later decisions cause questions.

 

I'm a digital hoarder, so my project master folders can have LOADS of sub folders representing the intermediate files and info. Some of these actually get deleted after 5 or 10 years, because the early design steps have little possibility of affecting repairs, restorations, or even do overs. For me, the final conformed AsBuilt is probably the most important file to hold onto.  Future biographers of the famous want none of this deleted.  But let's watch and laugh while they try to open any of the archaic files using dusty old museum software and hardware!

 

-B

Share this post


Link to post

The big advantage of keeping one DTM is I guess that if at some point in the future I get better survey data (which is what I'd expect on my current project, so far only at outline stage with some of the site measurements being guestimated) then I simply replace the old "existing" data with the new but without losing the information in all the modifiers that convert it to "proposed".

 

In theory, anyway. I've not used the Site Model tool enough yet to have a feel for how reliable it is. Will replacing the base data cause all the changes controlled by modifiers to go haywire in some unexpected way that will take so long to sort out that i might as well have just created a new site model with the new data, and redrawn the modified elements.

 

Also at the moment... I've so far only drawn up the "existing" site model and am about to do the first version of an "as proposed" one. I don't yet know if `i'm going to be able to get it to do exactly what I want using modifiers only, or is it going to turn out that I end up having to do various manual interventions because there' are some small but crucial things that the tool can't achieve. Based on my experience of nearly all other VW tools, my hunch is that it's going to be the latter (in which case I'd have to redraw both versions on receipt of full survey data) but we'll see!

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
Reply to this topic...

×   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...