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

[Tom W.]

I think we're talking about the Site Modifier tool not the Grade tool.

[line-weight]

8 hours ago, Jeff Prince said:

I doubt it’s Landmark only, aren’t the grading tools the same between arch and land?  Anyhow, when you wanted to make a pad modifier in the past or if you had adjacent or pad in pad situations, there were more hoops to jump through to get vertical sides or even for the grade to solve correctly.

 

now you simply draw a 2d shape, right click to “create objects from shapes, and choose a pad modifier.  After it is created, it will be selected, so you enter the elevation and if you want vertical sides.  Update the site model and you are done.  No grade limits, no send to ground, no monkeying with retaining edge handles… super easy compared to the old workflow, especially when you need to relocate the modifier to elsewhere on the site.

 

Here is what I'm doing:

1. draw rectangle

2. right click, "create objects from shapes", choose site modifier

3. I'm presented with this dialogue:

4. I've ticked the "vertical sides" box

5. Under "configuration" I choose "planar pad" (is that right?)

 

6. I click ok and I get this:

 

7. I update the site model and I get this, which isn't giving me vertical sides:

 

What am I doing wrong?

 

I get the same result if I choose "retaining edge" under the "configuration" options.

 

This is using VW2025 update 3.1.

 

[Tom W.]

13 minutes ago, line-weight said:

4. I've ticked the "vertical sides" box

 

This only affects subsequent modifiers placed inside the modifier in question.

 

If you apply the modifier to the Proposed model instead of Existing then does it have vertical sides?

[line-weight]

14 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

This only affects subsequent modifiers placed inside the modifier in question.

 

If you apply the modifier to the Proposed model instead of Existing then does it have vertical sides?

 

Hm - if I apply it to the Proposed model, then yes it does have vertical sides.

 

And it doesn't seem to make any difference whether I have that vertical sides box ticked. As you say, the setting suggests it only applies to inner modifiers but it's the only "vertical sides" tickbox I could see that fitted with @Jeff Prince's description.

[Jeff Prince]

34 minutes ago, line-weight said:

 

Hm - if I apply it to the Proposed model, then yes it does have vertical sides.

 

And it doesn't seem to make any difference whether I have that vertical sides box ticked. As you say, the setting suggests it only applies to inner modifiers but it's the only "vertical sides" tickbox I could see that fitted with @Jeff Prince's description.

now that’s something VWX should fix… make the tools work the same for both  Existing or Proposed.

[line-weight]

2 hours ago, Jeff Prince said:

now that’s something VWX should fix… make the tools work the same for both  Existing or Proposed.

 

I might report it as a bug.

 

Can you clarify what you meant when you mentioned ticking the "vertical sides" box - is it the one in my screenshots above? Would you agree this actually is not really relevant in this case?

 

Another thing to clarify - the method you describe applies when configuration = planar pad - is that right?

 

If I make configuration = retaining edge, then it seems like I have to follow the more complicated method (involving sending to surface and son on). But I seem to end up with the same result.

 

So what's the purpose of "retaining edge"? Does it actually do something different, or is it effectively superceded by "planar pad"?

[Jeff Prince]

1 hour ago, line-weight said:

 

I might report it as a bug.

 

Can you clarify what you meant when you mentioned ticking the "vertical sides" box - is it the one in my screenshots above? Would you agree this actually is not really relevant in this case?

 

Another thing to clarify - the method you describe applies when configuration = planar pad - is that right?

 

If I make configuration = retaining edge, then it seems like I have to follow the more complicated method (involving sending to surface and son on). But I seem to end up with the same result.

 

So what's the purpose of "retaining edge"? Does it actually do something different, or is it effectively superceded by "planar pad"?

I’m on a plane right now, so going from memory.  The retaining pad allows you to control how the edge behaved, like a retaining wall, you can adjust handles.  So, I think the planar pad is a simpler version of the retaining pad and has its advantages in most situations.  The vertical edge tickbox… I believe if you turn it off AND you have a grade limit placed some distance from it, you will see grading take place instead of vertical edge.  That’s desirable behavior if you are slab on grade and such.

[line-weight]

43 minutes ago, Jeff Prince said:

I’m on a plane right now, so going from memory.  The retaining pad allows you to control how the edge behaved, like a retaining wall, you can adjust handles.  So, I think the planar pad is a simpler version of the retaining pad and has its advantages in most situations.  The vertical edge tickbox… I believe if you turn it off AND you have a grade limit placed some distance from it, you will see grading take place instead of vertical edge.  That’s desirable behavior if you are slab on grade and such.

 

Ok. Thank you.

 

For now I'll report the different behaviour when applied to existing vs proposed versions of a site model as a bug.

[Tom W.]

11 minutes ago, line-weight said:

For now I'll report the different behaviour when applied to existing vs proposed versions of a site model as a bug.

 

I wonder whether the response will be that modifiers are not designed to be used without a Grade Limits?

[line-weight]

On 3/3/2025 at 4:42 PM, Tom W. said:

 

I wonder whether the response will be that modifiers are not designed to be used without a Grade Limits?

 

Either way it doesn't seem right that the behaviour is different according to whether it's applied to an existing or proposed version of the site model object.

[Henry Finch]

VW2025 terrain modeling is different but still does not work.

1. entered contours and made existing site model

2. now want to add existing building to site. There's no soil in basement. How do I update existing site model to show this?

Here's what happens. And, then no way to change the faulty "site modifier" 

These tools defy logic. 

 

[Jeff Prince]

52 minutes ago, Henry Finch said:

VW2025 terrain modeling is different but still does not work.

1. entered contours and made existing site model

2. now want to add existing building to site. There's no soil in basement. How do I update existing site model to show this?

Here's what happens. And, then no way to change the faulty "site modifier" 

These tools defy logic. 

 

upload your site and where you want the basement, I can show you how or what is wrong.

[Henry Finch]

2 hours ago, Jeff Prince said:

upload your site and where you want the basement, I can show you how or what is wrong.

I made a simple model not in the project file. Want to figure out how to make this work before possibly compromising the job file. To date I put the existing buildings on the site and have a dirt filled basement. On a little project I manually fixed all the contours to define the space below grade of the building. Will never do that again! 

Thanks for your help. I've used MC - VW since 1995 and rarely need any help with VW. I've worked in 3D since 1995 in VW. The VW terrain modeling interface is just poorly designed.

I designed and wrote a basic CAD 3D modeling program in 1970 or 71 which was used by many universities for a few years. 

VW2025 test of Terrain modelling.vwx

[Jonathan Pickup]

add a grade limits and it will look fine

site modifier.pdf

[Henry Finch]

I assume you mean add a 2nd site modifier called grade limits. did that. The site is even more contorted. Of course I have no idea what settings should be used in a grade limits site modifier.

BTW, the 1st site modifier is a "planar pad". And, tried a few other possibilities. 

[Jonathan Pickup]

did you follow the instructions in the PDF?

 

i notice you have assigned the planar pad to the existing, is there a reason for that, is it part of the existing site?

 

[Jonathan Pickup]

with an existing site model, you need to use a planar pad and a grade limits to get the retaining edge. with a proposed site model, just the planar pad will do. 

 

 

[Henry Finch]

I followed the planar pad PDF above.

Yes, this is for existing conditions. No change on site for this project. New house has to have same footprint as old and no changes of grade because of location close to lake. It will have new deep we foundation. On other projects there might only be interior renovations. On others there are large of small additions. 

[Henry Finch]

Jonathan, sorry, missed which PDF to look at. 

Your site modifier directions PDF is very clear. 

Yes, that works. Thanks! 

The VW site tools are very unintuitive. 

[line-weight]

6 hours ago, Jonathan Pickup said:

with an existing site model, you need to use a planar pad and a grade limits to get the retaining edge. with a proposed site model, just the planar pad will do. 

 

 

As mentioned further up the thread, this discrepancy surely can't be intentional & I've filed a bug on it.

 

The question is, which version of the behaviour is the one that's intended?

 

If it's that the grade limits are required for pseudo-vertical edges, this business of offsetting something by a tiny amount seems a horrible workflow to me, and suggests that the pad with retaining edges modifier is the one we are supposed to be using.

 

If it's that the grade limits aren't supposed to be required, then how would one make a level pad with sloping rather than vertical edges?

 

The way I think I'd want the tool to work would be: if it is not surrounded by grade limits, then the edges are (truly) vertical, and if it is surrounded by grade limits, then sloping edges are formed.

[line-weight]

On 3/6/2025 at 9:43 AM, line-weight said:

As mentioned further up the thread, this discrepancy surely can't be intentional & I've filed a bug on it.

 

The answer on this is that, yes, behaviour is different in proposed vs existing "phases" of site models.

 

It is not considered a bug and so will remain like this for now but consistent behaviour will be considered as an enhancement.