Jump to content
Kevin K

Landmark and site modeling

Recommended Posts

Regarding whether the site model should be sectioned as hollow or solid (I am talking about section viewports here rather than clip cube) - there are two scenarios where different behaviour is preferable:

 

(1) For a general site section, for example at early stages of a project, it is useful if the 'site' is shown as solid, with any buildings 'merged' into it. For these sections, what happens underground (foundations and so on) is not really important. These will tend to be the same drawings where components of walls etc are shown "merged".

 

(2) For more detailed construction stage drawings it is more useful to have the site model  effectively "hollow", so that below-ground detail such as foundations *is* visible. The foundations will likely be shown sectioned but not "merged" - in other words the different components/materials will be visible. In this scenario, all I generally want for the site model is a single thick section line representing the ground surface. In theory this could be achieved with a "solid" site model but only if that solid has any below-ground construction subtracted from it - something that is not really feasible in practice.

 

For this reason, ideally the user should be able to choose which way the site model is sectioned, per viewport.

 

If it's not clear what the two types of drawings I'm talking about are, I can provide examples.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/20/2019 at 4:41 AM, A McDonell said:

4. Im finding that i get lots of conflict alerts and inhibited model when I add a "proposed' site modifiers which cross over ' existing site modifiers. Yet this is an essentially ability. I need to use existing SM's to  clean up my survey point data generated site model and then my proposed SM's are naturally going to edit these existing conditions.

 

Is there a work around? Like a way to export a "clean" site model which integrates existing SM's as permanent edits? Once i have established existing conditions accurately Id be happy to lose the ability to retroactively edit existing conditions (and possibly make the file lighter?) once I commence design  (proposed) iterations.

 

There is an easy way. Just convert your Modificators to 3D-Polygons Copy/Paste them into the DTM Data and remove the old Terrain Data that covers the same area. As always when working with DTM's. Don't move or rotate the model after creation, like this you keep the same origin inside and outside the model so paste in place will work properly.

 

On 10/21/2019 at 5:04 PM, bozho said:

It seems that in order to change this behavior we need changes in the Clip Cube functionality so it interprets enclosed meshes as "solids"?

 

There is also an easy way. 🙂 Just overwrite the class settings of the DTM's class in the viewports settings.

Edited by herbieherb
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, herbieherb said:

 

There is an easy way. Just convert your Modificators to 3D-Polygons Copy/Paste them into the DTM Data and remove the old Terrain Data that covers the same area. As always when working with DTM's. Don't move or rotate the model after creation, like this you keep the same origin inside and outside the model so paste in place will work properly.

 

 

There is also an easy way. 🙂 Just overwrite the class settings of the DTM's class in the viewports settings.

 

I advised this to someone recently which reduces the steps:

 

1. Duplicate the layer the Site Model is in for safekeeping the original Existing Site Modifiers (just in case, for reference).

2. Go to a 'Top' view and change the Existing Site Model to be viewed as 3D Contours.

3. Ungroup. These 3D polygons now include the shape of the modified existing terrain.

4. Select them all and use them as the source data for a new Site Model.

 

Then there'll be no conflict between the existing and proposed Site Modifiers as the existing are gone. It begs the question as to why there are conflicts between Existing and Proposed Site Modifiers in the first place...

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, with this method the DTM data becomes up to 6 times larger than necessary. With very large data sets I would create a marionette/script that extract the vertices from the 3D polygons, then deletes the doubled vertices and creates 3D-loci out of it. Then generate a new DTM out of these 3D-Loci.

Share this post


Link to post

And don't forget the Simplify 3D Polygon command which removes many of the vertices from a 3D poly, without compromising its shape.

  • Like 3

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...