Jump to content

Enable Cut Plan at Layer Elevation greyed out.


Recommended Posts

Hello, 

 

In a 2D plan Viewport, 2 layers are activated : Ground floor and Basement. For some reason, I would like to override the cut plan elevation of my Basement in order that only my Ground floor would be drawn as cut. The Basement would be drawn as seen from top / non-cut. Problem : This option is greyed out in my Layers overrides window. 

 

The general idea is that I would like to see on my Groundfloor plan informations from my Basement plan but seen as if the cut plan would be on my Groundfloor (actually like any proper plan). 

 

Please, see the screenshot below to see exactly what I mean... 

 

321944622_Capturedcran2021-07-2109_45_37.thumb.png.e11a8c7e8d66b9ce24a721c6e7b4788b.png

Link to comment

I think basically you want everything on your basement layer to be viewed as a "top" view rather than top/plan view - is that right?

 

I don't think a top/plan viewport is able to do this, and it's one of the reasons I don't really use them, and use a horizontal section instead (which has its own, different issues).

 

A workaround I used previously was to have two viewports on top of each other - one would only have the ground floor, with cut plane in top/plan view, and the other one would be a horizontal section, with the cut plane at the same height and with the basement layer visible. I would have to crop around the edges of the "top/plan" viewport which was very fiddly.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, line-weight said:

I think basically you want everything on your basement layer to be viewed as a "top" view rather than top/plan view - is that right?

Exactly. 

 

5 hours ago, line-weight said:

I don't think a top/plan viewport is able to do this, and it's one of the reasons I don't really use them, and use a horizontal section instead (which has its own, different issues).

It is actually possible but as far as I know only in the design space. Hence actually my question, if it is possible to do it in the layout space by overriding the setting which is greyed out – I don't know why... Look at the screenshots below, taken from the design space, so it's not exactly what I want. I just want to unlock the greyed out setting Enable Cut Plan at Layer Elevation in the layers override... It is so closed of being a super useful setting ! 

 

Also, I am aware of horizontal sections, but as you said, they have their own issues. In my case, I cannot use them on this specific project. 

 

1059042872_Capturedcran2021-07-2116_08_26.thumb.png.019415fa5b72af55d83e482f94966382.png314590921_Capturedcran2021-07-2116_07_41.thumb.png.fabc1be4efd352051673aab6928a24c0.png^

Link to comment
5 hours ago, line-weight said:

A workaround I used previously was to have two viewports on top of each other - one would only have the ground floor, with cut plane in top/plan view, and the other one would be a horizontal section

 Interesting. 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Stéphane said:

Exactly. 

 

It is actually possible but as far as I know only in the design space.

 

 

 

Ah - I had not actually noticed before that it is possible in the "design space" per layer - but I see that it is.

 

I've just tried it out... but it doesn't seem to really work as I'd expected. For example if I set it higher than a wall, it shows that wall in 'top' view but it still shows door and window openings cut out of it, which is not correct.

 

I have not really investigated 'cut plane elevation' much so far. My understanding was that it was something that applied to a horizontal section viewport (and therefore affected all layers visible in that viewport, depending on their elevation relative to it).

Link to comment

...and now I understand what you mean about wanting to over-ride it in a viewport.

 

Yes I can see how that might make sense.

 

But I think it is not really designed to be used in this way. It's not really intended that you have several design layers that sit above/below each other, visible in a top/plan viewport.

 

To be honest I think top/plan as a concept is dead (except for editing purposes in the design space) and that's why I am now investing my effort in making horizontal sections work in an "as least badly as possible" way instead.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, line-weight said:

 

To be honest I think top/plan as a concept is dead (except for editing purposes in the design space) and that's why I am now investing my effort in making horizontal sections work in an "as least badly as possible" way instead.

Can you elaborate on this? I've not really ever used horizontal section VPs. Thanks 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

Can you elaborate on this? I've not really ever used horizontal section VPs. Thanks 

 

 

That thread I started back in 2016... and at some point between then and now (2019?) VW have introduced the "horizontal section" viewport which is kind-of something similar to what I am asking for there.

 

Essentially a horizontal section is a genuine horizontal slice through the whole model, with a few 2d symbols automatically placed for things like doors, a kind of hybrid between top/plan and a 'dumb' horizontal section (which simply slices the geometry and doesn't attempt to draw things like door swings).

 

For a while I've been using 'dumb' horizontal sections, and then touching them up in annotation space. I've relatively recently moved from VW2018 to 2021 and have only just started out trying to use the 'new' horizontal section viewports. So far I have found that various things don't work properly (although I need to test it out more) but at least it seems to be going in the right direction. In my opinion top/plan is no good for producing proper drawings, and the issues highlighted by this thread are an example of why.

Link to comment

Thank you for your inputs @line-weight

 

I cannot use horizontal sections since I have several buildings on a slope. Also, I think horizontal sections are more difficult to handle, in order to get proper – graphically speaking – plans. This being said, I might not have tried hard enough to make this work. 

Link to comment

I'm not sure why they would not work for buildings on a slope? Is it because you want to show eg. ground floor for each building, but each building has its ground floor at a different level? In that case, I might try and use several viewports laid beside each other but I can see that might get complicated.

 

For me, I find it very difficult to get 'proper' (graphically speaking) plans using top-plan. I expect which method is best depends on what kind of buildings you are dealing with. If they are quite rectilinear with multiple storeys then maybe top/plan works OK. But for example, as soon as I have rooms inside pitched roofs, or anything where I've had to model a lot of stuff manually from solids (old buildings with funny stairs, say) top/plan becomes pretty much useless to me.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, line-weight said:

Is it because you want to show eg. ground floor for each building, but each building has its ground floor at a different level? In that case, I might try and use several viewports laid beside each other but I can see that might get complicated.

Exactly. Several viewports yes, but look, I want to do architecture, not viewports management 🙂 

Things should be simple and efficient. Actually I don't like to spend time on drawings. The less time I spend on drawing things the happier I am. Thats why I moved to BIM. And before that, to CAD

 

 

22 minutes ago, line-weight said:

For me, I find it very difficult to get 'proper' (graphically speaking) plans using top-plan. I expect which method is best depends on what kind of buildings you are dealing with. If they are quite rectilinear with multiple storeys then maybe top/plan works OK. But for example, as soon as I have rooms inside pitched roofs, or anything where I've had to model a lot of stuff manually from solids (old buildings with funny stairs, say) top/plan becomes pretty much useless to me.

I have to say, I don't know how I would deal with old buildings renovation. No clue. I would probably keep it simple and do things in 2D. Not worth it to model everything in 3D. The 3D information exist already. 

 

 

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...