Jump to content
Phileas

Fitting a slab to the slope of another slab

Recommended Posts

@line-weight  you're totally right, almost all my windows are solid modelled, staircases obviously too since the stair tool is the worst abomination of this program in my opinion (I think we can all agree on that). But I still want to contribute to reaching that day where the tools will be powerful enough to do everything, and that's the reason I keep posting these days shouting out the headache the tools in this program give me some days...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Phileas said:

But I still want to contribute to reaching that day where the tools will be powerful enough to do everything, and that's the reason I keep posting these days shouting out the headache the tools in this program give me some days...

 

Yup - me too.

Share this post


Link to post

Extrude the soil above the lowest part of the slab.

Select both Slab & Soil

Model - Subtract Solids (Retain)

 

If you need to change the slab slope do so then copy and paste in place into the Solid Subtraction to update the soil.

 

Soil over pitched slab.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

My approach to this would be the same as I take with walls when the VW tool can't produce what I want, which would be just to revert to direct solid modelling. I'd make the concrete element to the shape I want, then make an additional two objects using solids subtraction/addition, one for the sealing layer and one for the dirt/earth. I'd then give them the necessary attributes to show up as you desire in sections etc.

 

I also thought about that way.

Maybe there is any workaround to trick drainage + add solid to Slab and such.

But for the time I need to find or make that work, I can model a few

Generic Solids and try to manually add some suitable IFC Tags.

(Which also isn't that easy, when grouped or ion Symbols and such.

Also no proper Top Plan Style View with Solids ....)

Share this post


Link to post

@bcd HEY man that looks promising as f*ck!!! not at work anymore, but I'll try that on monday and tell you guys if it worked 🙂 🙂 thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

@zoomer what I usually do to get the top plan view I want when using solids is:

  • model the entire thing in 3D until you're happy with it. Make it a symbol by going to: Organisation -> Create Symbol
  • Drag it into it's final location
  • go to a top/plan view. You should see a mess of lines, because solid extruds have no fill in a top/plan view.
  • draw the 2D apparition you want your object to have on top of your object using 2D polylines or rectangles/triangles/whatever.
  • select every shape you drew
  • cut them using Ctrl+X (PC) or CMD+X (Mac)
  • Right-Click your Symbol and choose "Edit 2D part". You'll arrive to an empty screen, since your symbol has no 2D apparition yet.
  • Paste the things you cut out earlier (Ctrl+V on PC, CMD+V on Mac).
  • Go back to your top/plan view. You might find the 2D part of your symbol placed somewhere on your floorplan where it isn't supposed to be. But if you go to any 3D view, you'll see your Symbol is still placed correctly, only the 2D part is not sitting on top of the 3D one. SO you need to go to a top/plan view again,
  • double-click the offset 2D part of your symbol
  • everything except your 2D symbol will now show greyed out. drag the 2D part to it's correct location and exit back to your top/plan view.

Voilà, now you have the 2D apparition you want for your 2D/3D symbol.

I know you can convert any symbol directly to an hybrid symbol in the AEC panel, but I often find the automatic apparition oh the 3D symbols to show the wrong lines, or too few, or too many.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

My current favourite approach is to ignore top/plan completely, and my plans are generated as horizontal sections.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Phileas said:
  • draw the 2D apparition you want your object to have on top of your object using 2D polylines or rectangles/triangles/whatever.
  • select every shape you drew

 

A cool variation on this is to simply edit the Symbol (3d component) and draw the 2d as Screen Plane objects. Then when you Exit Symbol it becomes a hybrid symbol with 3d & 2d already correctly aligned.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Add the soil layer to the slab components so that it tapers like the tapered layers below. 

Create an extrude at height you want the soil level to be horizontal.

Select the extrude and the slab object, right click and subtract the extrude from the slab.838709149_Flattop.thumb.JPG.88adc01fd49c91915008b6228972f363.JPG

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/1/2019 at 7:55 AM, line-weight said:

My current favourite approach is to ignore top/plan completely, and my plans are generated as horizontal sections.

@line-weight: please elaborate on that workflow when you have a sec. I am interested.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, mjm said:

@line-weight: please elaborate on that workflow when you have a sec. I am interested.

 

I've found, at least for the kind of buildings that I do, that it's really a pain trying to build a model that also 'works' in top/plan view. All the stuff that I was having to do to get it to be correct in top/plan view was hindering me in having a model that I could edit fluently; it was just unpleasant trying to use it as part of a design process because there were certain things that I had treat specially in order not to break other stuff, and certain simple changes were just unduly tedious.

 

And I still wasn't getting floorplans, in top/plan view that I was happy sending out as finished drawings. This was partly due to the patching-up I was having to do in annotations - it was just too difficult to get a clean output.

 

So I decided to try a different strategy: the model is built in a way that makes sense in 3d rather than a way that forces top/plan view to produce something like what I want. This means quite a bit of stuff is solid-modelled rather than made with VW tools. Some stuff is built as wall objects and so on, but I'm now more free to use, say, wall objects where that makes things easier, and make other bits of walls from directly modelled objects where it doesn't.

 

Then the plan is simply a horizontal section viewport, sliced at the cutting plane height I want. This throws up a few small problems, which still have to be fixed in annotations, but I think fewer than when I was trying to do stuff in top/plan. There a few things - like door swing lines - that I have to draw on manually.

 

Editing the plan becomes a little messy - I still use top/plan for this, where it makes sense, but much of my editing and draughting is now done in a 3d openGL view instead.

 

I'm sure there are other types of project where this strategy wouldn't make things easier. For what I do which is smaller architectural projects with lots of one-off stuff and often involving old buildings and things like roofspaces, I think it suits me better. I'm currently trialing it on a couple of small projects, through to construction drawings. So I haven't tested it right the way through the process yet but so far it seems fairly promising. I was thinking that once I've reached the end of one of those projects, I might do a thread on here and post a version of the drawing file so that people can see what they think. Personally I think VW should head more in the direction of horizontal section concept for floorplans and that top/plan should gradually be brushed under the carpet. Others may disagree!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

so i go around and place my plumb bobs setting the slope manually...while it appears tedious and maybe it is...i don't mind since i know this works rock solid in the VPs .

 

there is always this fear that if i spend x hours modeling then how much of that time is translated to the VPs and how much is lost and needs patching...

 

I'm finding with direct modeling i get a 100%+ on my investment in direct modeling...

 

parametric tools are fast but will always let you down...I doubt its a VW only thing...Its just the nature of parametric tools...they cant do everything and if they did then why not just direct model?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

the subdivision tool maybe a parametric tool but it seems to be a sub-parametric tool it that there seems to be no limit to its function..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

After dissecting the file (thank you for sharing) I need to learn more about subdivisions

Your approach is very much like construction methods (especially the plum bob symbols)

Hopefully youtube will be a resource 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, bob cleaver said:

After dissecting the file (thank you for sharing) I need to learn more about subdivisions

Your approach is very much like construction methods (especially the plum bob symbols)

Hopefully youtube will be a resource 

 

Same here.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/5/2019 at 7:28 PM, line-weight said:

and that top/plan should gradually be brushed under the carpet.

Wow...I just read your post...exactly how I feel...I want to do zero patching in my VPs and have totally abandoned the top/plan view (granted I'm not working on houses)

 

patching undermines the whole model for when you change the model the patching is now mis-aligned.

 

The top/plan view is an old paradigm...the reality is all views are equal and they should all be of the same quality..

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, digitalcarbon said:

Wow...I just read your post...exactly how I feel...I want to do zero patching in my VPs and have totally abandoned the top/plan view (granted I'm not working on houses)

 

patching undermines the whole model for when you change the model the patching is now mis-aligned.

 

The top/plan view is an old paradigm...the reality is all views are equal and they should all be of the same quality..

 

Yes.

 

Since I wrote that post - I've taken one job (architectural, small scale) through to construction stage where none of the drawings have used top/plan. All floorplans are horizontal sections.

 

I also managed to create quite a few of the large scale detail drawings, for construction, directly from the model, with relatively little adjustment in the annotation layer.

 

I've had to accept a few compromises in how my floorplans look, but on the whole have managed to get much closer to what I want, with less fiddling around, than would have been the case had I tried to generate the plans for that job using top/plan mode.

Share this post


Link to post

@line-weight, I bet you had the feeling of "I sure hope this works" then when you make the VPs, POW! all done...its like "I'm never going back!"

 

the VGM has been greatly streamlined in 2020...modeling is so easy and fun...why would i want to fight with dialog boxes?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

the secret to success is to make your model neat and clean.  clean clean clean...then you get nice VPs...no patching no fighting...why are we trying to model in 3d through dialog boxes?

 

I'll admit that the 3d Connexion Space Nav is critical...if that disappeared then I would be sunk...

Edited by digitalcarbon

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, digitalcarbon said:

@line-weight, I bet you had the feeling of "I sure hope this works" then when you make the VPs, POW! all done...its like "I'm never going back!"

 

 

 

Yes - to some extent.

 

It's mixed with a feeling of nervousness that I will break something in the model,  and then *all* of my plans, sections and elevations will need fixing, something that doesn't happen when you're doing things in 2d.  But, so far, nothing too bad has happened.

 

Absolutely agree about a clean model. It means investing quite a lot of time 'up front' but you get the payback at the end.

 

There are some changes to the design that are ultra easy - adjust something a bit, and all of the drawings update, just like that. Unlike in the old days where a relatively trivial change meant a tedious process of going through all the relevant drawings and updating them one by one.

 

Then there are some changes that aren't as easy. These are where VW's parametric tools can't do the job. For example, on this one, the walls were directly modelled - each layer of the buildup. This is because they had funny geometry that the wall tool simply couldn't cope with, and in any case it can't cope with the complexity of most eg. wall/floor junctions in such a way that I could extract construction details from them. So, moving a wall 100mm means making sure I catch all the relevant components, move them together, and then go round each of its junctions with other walls, floors and ceilings and extend/trim them as necessary (again component by component). This takes quite a lot of time... certainly compared to moving a wall that's been made with the wall tool.

 

Now the project is being built on site ... there are certain changes I've decided it's not worth making in the model. For these, I can get away with annotations and a bit of 'cheating'. It might not matter if there's a slightly inconsistency between two drawings because the change has been discussed with the builder, and what's needed is understood. All that the drawing has to do is perhaps confirm a dimension or two. It's all about trying to make a sensible decision about what's necessary to draw (as has always been the case with draughting).

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...