Jump to content

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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
  • 1 year later...
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
On 10/17/2019 at 7:00 PM, E|FA said:

I'm still on 2019, and am looking forward to using the added/improved hardscape tool once I update.

 

Any chance of getting the retaining wall added to Architect in a 2021 SP?  Almost every project I work on has retaining walls.  I don't understand the logic of restricting this particular site modifier to VW Landmark users.

 

Edit: Updated to request for VW 2021SP.   @Tamsin Slatter, any chance this will happen?  2022?  I'm assuming this is a business decision, rather than a technical issue.

Do you mean the retaining wall site modifier?
It's not my decision of course, but I can certainly ask.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tamsin Slatter said:

Do you mean the retaining wall site modifier?
It's not my decision of course, but I can certainly ask.

Exactly.  I'd appreciate your asking.

 

There's an existing Wishlist item that I have also commented in: 

 

Edited by E|FA
Link to comment
On 10/7/2019 at 11:42 AM, E|FA said:

@Kevin K I think this is possible by creating a 3d polygon and changing its class to Site-DTM-Modifier which is the automatically created class for modifiers. I believe I learned this trick from @Jonathan Pickup  and don’t know if it’s anywhere in the VW documentation. 

 

it is possible and a good trick to remember when pads and contours don't work easily. Still works in 2021

I have a few YouTube moves on site modeling:

 

 

 

https://youtu.be/vD94_FWKhW0

 

https://youtu.be/y3eYdickZbE

 

 

Link to comment

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.

×
×
  • Create New...