kyle.kyler Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 Recently, our office has had some issues with 3D modeling while trying out the the Cut/Fill features of Landmark. Namely, portions of the model appear choppy, as if they are jumping around regardless of where our contour site modifiers are located. Most of the model is behaving as we would expect, but certain portions seem to be rogue. See attached images to see specifically what we are talking about. While creating the model, we noticed a few hiccups. For example, when creating contour site modifiers from our 3D polygons, we selected "Contours" in the drop-down menu. However, once the modifier was created, it appeared as a "Pad" in the OIP. We have manually changed this in the attached file, but are unclear about why this is happening. Although this is a recent issue, it has occurred on more than one file/project in our office. In previous months, contour site modifiers have been created from 3D polygons as expected. Even after altering the site modifier type in the OIP, any conflicts that pop up in the model are listed as intersecting "pads". The question is not whether or not a conflict exists (we can see where certain site modifiers do overlap), but we don't understand why they are listed as "Pad" intersections. Another potential issue: We've noticed that when contour site modifiers are selected, vertices display on the ground plane instead of on the actual elevation of the object. Does this present an issue in terms of modeling, or is this simply the way that the program displays vertices? Other actions we've taken: - Updated Vectorworks to the most recent service pack (2019 SP6). - Shifted the internal origin to be at the center of the model Cut Fill 3DM.vwx Quote Link to comment
Vectorworks, Inc Employee bgoff Posted March 3, 2020 Vectorworks, Inc Employee Share Posted March 3, 2020 Kyle, This file has many modifiers overlapping, and many pads that are not closed (many contours for your berms should be pads and should be closed. Also add a grade limit to the site. Try these and I will be in touch. 1 Quote Link to comment
line-weight Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 I shall watch this with interest as it sounds rather similar to issues I've had with site modifiers (although I'm still on VW2018) I don't really trust site modifiers to behave nicely at all. Quote Link to comment
Vectorworks, Inc Employee Tamsin Slatter Posted March 3, 2020 Vectorworks, Inc Employee Share Posted March 3, 2020 To add to Bryan's excellent input... if you already have 3D polys that represent your proposed contours, you do not need to convert them. Simply add them to the Site-DTM-Modifier class and they will become modifiers. And yes, always use a Grade Limit. 1 Quote Link to comment
kyle.kyler Posted March 3, 2020 Author Share Posted March 3, 2020 Thank you both for your replies. Bryan- there is a grade limit in the file that I have attached here, and it does significantly improve the site model. We will work to close our contours and remove overlapping conflicts. Tamsin- Thank you for the advice on bypassing the contour conversion step. I was not aware that assigning the 3D polys to the Site-DTM-Modifier class could be done instead. Have either of you had situations where you convert an object to a "contour" site modifier and it results in a "pad" site modifier? Thanks again 1 Quote Link to comment
Vectorworks, Inc Employee Tamsin Slatter Posted March 3, 2020 Vectorworks, Inc Employee Share Posted March 3, 2020 Actually, there is no such thing as a contour site modifier. Under that name, it's really just an open Pad. So a 3D Poly does just as well and yes, the class trick us pure magic. Remember this when creating complex modifiers. The advantage of a 3D poly is that it each vertex can have a unique Z value, unlike a Pad. 3 Quote Link to comment
Vectorworks, Inc Employee Tamsin Slatter Posted March 3, 2020 Vectorworks, Inc Employee Share Posted March 3, 2020 And... the other advantage of using 3D polys as modifiers, particularly for curves, is that you can run Simplify 3D polys on them, to reduce the vertex count and avoid creating an unnecessarily complex site model which takes forever to calculate. 3 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.