Site modifier pad with retaining edge - hot to get a clean line sinking down?

[May_Mal]

I am trying to create a sunken storey within my site through using the site modifier, but instead of creating a nice clean edge with a retaining wall it just creates a massive gentle  slope through entire site. How to resolve this? I tried pretty much every setting there is... 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tom W.]

You need to use a Pad with Retaining Edge Modifier rather than a Pad Modifier. And place a Grade Limits around it

[Pat Stanford]

And it can not be exactly vertical. Just a tiny bit of slope (1 mm or even 0.1 mm difference between the top and bottom) works fine, but true vertical does not.

[May_Mal]

This worked brilliantly! Thank you both, @Pat Stanford @Tom W.

 

 

[Poot]

What @TomW said.  Here is a video showing that: Pad with Retaining Edge

 

You basically create the site modifier (pad with retaining edge) from the shape, and once thats done, right click again and send to surface. It should cut into the site as you want.

 

*edit. seems you got to it 🙂

Edited July 28, 2021 by Poot

[Tom W.]

16 minutes ago, May_Mal said:

This worked brilliantly! Thank you both, @Pat Stanford @Tom W.

Cool. There's also the 'Create Retaining Wall Site Modifier...' command which might be useful for what you're doing.

And to create a Grade Limits which is just a an enlarged version of an existing pad there's the 'Create Grade Limits From Pad...' command

[line-weight]

Is a retaining edge 'pad' with steps in level at the bottom possible? As this sort of thing is often what's actually required in real life. For example with trench/strip foundations, and/or a building that steps in levels down a site.

[Tom W.]

You can probably do it with retaining wall site modifier but I've never tried:

[Henry Finch]

Does this work with VW Architect site tools? I've never able to figure out how to place a house with basement on a site model removing only the material which was displaced by the house. All the material to be trucked away and not used as fill on the site model. 

[E|FA]

I think your best bet is to use a Pad with Retaining Edge.  It's a little confusing how to make it work, you have to set the bottom, then send to surface to create the side walls.  The Retaining Wall tool is not available in Architect, though somewhere on the forum I posted a request to make it available.  

[Henry Finch]

E FA, I'm using Pad with Retaining Edge with confusing crazy unpredictable and minimal controls. Is this because it's through VW Architect?

[Henry Finch]

The site tools need a greatly simplified user interface. I should be able to use a solid object and place it on a site model and then subtract that solid object from the site model. With the custom house designs I do we usually have to truck away the cut. The amount of removed material is easily calculated. 

[E|FA]

I agree, there are many user interface issues to deal with.  I forget how I figured out the Pad with Retaining Edge workflow, but I think it was trial & error trying to understand the help system:  https://app-help.vectorworks.net/2022/eng/VW2022_Guide/SiteModel1/Creating_a_pad_or_pad_with_retaining_edge.htm

 

The other thing you might try is create a solid object like you're describing, and put it into the Site-DTM-Modifier Class.  Anything with that Class becomes a site modifier (and the class name can't be changed & is automatically created by VW when you make your first modifier in a file).  Let me know if that works, because if it does, I'll be using that method as well.

 

Also, recommended practice is to always set a Grade Limit.  If I don't need to set it closer to the building footprint, I default to using the property line to make sure grading remains on the lot.

 

[Henry Finch]

creating solid and putting in "Site-DTM-Modifier" Class isn't recognized. 

 

Fastest way found so far:

- create polygon and place on site model. put in "layer" plane, not "screen". (actually didn't try screen plane)

- set Z height of polygon to bottom of desired cut.

- do NOT need to put in "site-DTM-modifier" class

- select the polygon and "Create Objects from Shapes...." which is on the "AEC" menu.

    - object type: “Site Modifier"

    - select “Pad with Retaining Edge”

    - (and “proposed” or “existing”) etc.

- from menu: “AEC” - “Terrain” - “Send to Surface”

    - little window comes up. select “Fit the retaining edge”

- “Update” site model

- Done

 

This cuts out the hole for a building without placing fill around the building on the site. The "Send to Surface" and “Fit the retaining edge” does the job. 

 

have to practice since so unintuitive. 

[Henry Finch]

Important to set Z height of polygon before making into site modifier or is it before sending to surface? 

[Tom W.]

1 hour ago, Henry Finch said:

Important to set Z height of polygon before making into site modifier or is it before sending to surface? 

 

Set the elevation of the Pad in the site modifier preferences when you run the 'Create Objects from Shapes...' command. But you can change it via the 'Elevation' parameter in the OIP at any point after that, e.g. if you need to raise or lower your building, just update the site model after doing so

[Vitute]

Hi, Retaining Edge Modifier is still a bit of a mistery. If you do not follow the excat steps you are messed up e.g. not pushing sent to surface in the settings while creating it BUT, sent to surface only after it's created... etc... - OK, knowing that it works fine. HOWEVER, why using sent to surface - fit the retaining edge command, terain is still slightly changed? I would expect it should follow (fit) the terain, not change it. 

In the pictures below, pad is set to 400cm, retaining edge - sent to suface - fit retaining edge. In blue - proposed, green - existing.

[Cody Worthman]

On 4/14/2024 at 3:42 AM, Vitute said:

Hi, Retaining Edge Modifier is still a bit of a mistery. If you do not follow the excat steps you are messed up e.g. not pushing sent to surface in the settings while creating it BUT, sent to surface only after it's created... etc... - OK, knowing that it works fine. HOWEVER, why using sent to surface - fit the retaining edge command, terain is still slightly changed? I would expect it should follow (fit) the terain, not change it. 

In the pictures below, pad is set to 400cm, retaining edge - sent to suface - fit retaining edge. In blue - proposed, green - existing.

Try a grade limit around the retaining modifier + check vertical sides for internal modifiers.

 

The grade limit forces the proposed contours to meet up with the existing terrain.

Edited April 22, 2024 by Cody Worthman

[line-weight]

On 11/20/2021 at 6:03 PM, Henry Finch said:

creating solid and putting in "Site-DTM-Modifier" Class isn't recognized. 

 

Fastest way found so far:

- create polygon and place on site model. put in "layer" plane, not "screen". (actually didn't try screen plane)

- set Z height of polygon to bottom of desired cut.

- do NOT need to put in "site-DTM-modifier" class

- select the polygon and "Create Objects from Shapes...." which is on the "AEC" menu.

    - object type: “Site Modifier"

    - select “Pad with Retaining Edge”

    - (and “proposed” or “existing”) etc.

- from menu: “AEC” - “Terrain” - “Send to Surface”

    - little window comes up. select “Fit the retaining edge”

- “Update” site model

- Done

 

This cuts out the hole for a building without placing fill around the building on the site. The "Send to Surface" and “Fit the retaining edge” does the job. 

 

have to practice since so unintuitive. 

 

Glad I'm not the only one finding this tool frustrating. What I've written below results from reading this thread, trial and error, and quite a lot of cursing.

 

The first key thing:

Do not update the site model prior to doing the "send to surface" command! Because if you update the model first, it'll create a big mess with sloped edges, and then when you "send to surface" it will send the relevant polygon to the already-modified surface, which is almost certainly what you do not want.

 

Another thing

When you first draw the modifier, and view it in 3d, it looks like there's just a single polygon, sitting at whatever elevation you'd specified for the pad elevation. But in reality there are two polygons superimposed: one outlines the pad itself, and the other represents the top/bottom of the vertical wall that's going to extend upwards or downwards from the pad edges. This only becomes apparent if you activate the reshape tool and try moving the vertices.

 

I don't know why the tool is designed like this - why would you choose this tool (which is specifically to make pads with vertical edges) if you didn't want any vertical edge? Because if the two polygons are identical that's what you are going to get: a pad with no vertical edges. Why is that second edge not sent to the terrain surface by default? Isn't that what 99% of users are likely to want if they are using this? Alternatively, have them offset by some default dimension (perhaps one that can be set numerically in the toolbar/OIP). Even if that dimension is not what the user wants, it at least would provide some visual clue of what's going on.

 

Also - even once they are not superimposed, give us some visual clue about what each polygon is, that doesn't require the reshape tool to be activated! In most cases, I won't want to manually adjust them - I will simply want to send to surface.

 

Here's what I get at first, after creating a new "pad with retaining edge" modifier at arbitrary elevation:

 

 

 

 

Here's what I get if I change the pad elevation to something closer to what I want:

 

 

At this stage the upper polygon is a mystery to me - no clue about what it represents, no numerical control in the OIP. That's why most people are probably tempted to press "update site model" at this stage and if they do they get this:

 

 

Which is almost certainly not what they wanted.

 

Instead you have to first go for "send to surface (fit the retaining edge)" and this is the first point at which anything seems to make any sense:

 

 

And it's only now that it's safe to update the site model:

 

 

 

[line-weight]

Further sources of confusion: inconsistent naming -

 

Decide what these site modifiers are called and stick to it. Is it a "pad with retaining edge" or is it a "retaining edge"?

 

The confusion is compounded by the existence of the "retaining wall" site modifier which is something else again and is created in a different way.

 

 

This is the kind of stuff that badly needs to be sorted out in a general review of user interfaces throughout the programme.