Define cut/fill angle between hardscape modifier and site model?

[Anders Blomberg]

Is it possible to define the slope angle between hardscape modifier and site model? I've learned to use the grade limit boundary to define where cut/fill will start in a plan view, but that's not how I'd typically define it. Instead I'd like to be able to say that the slope should be 1:5 wherever there is a cut or a fill. Tried to show it in an attached drawing as well.

 

Also, in connection to the drawing, how do I define text style for the site model contour lines?

Define slopes.pdf

[Tom W.]

If you use the 'Create Grade Limits from Pad...' command (AEC>Terrain or Landmark menu) you can select the 'Batter Slope' option which will do what you want 

[Anders Blomberg]

Thanks! Looks like what I need but I don't get the expected results. I created both a simple pad and a hardscape and tried the command and in both instances I got a massive area for the limit. See attached.

[Tom W.]

I assume it's something to do with the 45° max slope you've specified. What are the elevations of the pad/hardscape relative to the terrain? Presumably if you've specified a slope that steep they are quite a bit higher than the ground level?

 

I should say that although I knew about the batter slope option I have never needed to use it myself!

[Anders Blomberg]

Turns out it was the value for "test increment" under "slope control options" that basically set the offset distance. It also seems to defeat the specified slope and I can't disable it so I'm not getting any use out of the tool. Any idea of what I could be doing wrong? Even when reading up in the help section I'm not understanding the purpose of "test increment".

[Pat Stanford]

Can you DM me a test file that shows this or post it here?

[Anders Blomberg]

It's just a simple little file that I use to try out stuff. I'm new to the software and currently trying to learn everything I can about it.

 

 

 

ÖVNINGSPROJEKT.vwx

[Tom W.]

Like you say you need to use the 'Slope Control Options' to achieve the desired result. I don't totally understand why this should be other than the fact that this option helps achieve 'a more uniform slope' + 'increases the accuracy of the slope calculations' (from Help). There must be something about the slope that VW finds difficult unless a midpoint is included. Perhaps because it slopes upwards in one direction + downwards in the other? 

 

If I raise the hardscape above the terrain the command works without enabling 'Slope Control Options':

[Anders Blomberg]

Ah, can I submit it as some kind of bug? I assume this is not how it's supposed to work. Thank's for looking at it!

[Tom W.]

No probs. See what @Pat Stanford says but I don't think it's a bug. It does what you wanted it to no? If you play around with it some more in different circumstances you will understand better where/when/why the slope control options are required but they are obviously there for a reason + in this case resulted in getting the slope you wanted. Like I say possibly because of the fact the hardscape was half in the terrain + half out: presumably this requires a more complex calculation because the slope has to change direction midway around the hardscape? When the hardscape is fully out of the terrain the slope control options aren't required.

[Anders Blomberg]

Thanks Tom. Took me some time to follow up on this. I'm really struggling to get my head around the parameters. I did some tests to try the different settings. I hope they're understandable from the attached screen shot. Would have loved a more detailed explanation in the help section. Some results as I understand them:

• I can't see a difference when checking "use midpoints" or not.
• "Max offset" seemed mostly to make a difference outside of the site.
• "Test increment" seems basically to set the offset distance.

Now I might not get what I'm hoping for with the tool but I was hoping I could just set a slope that I want (regardless of the hardscape's location in relation to current site) and then have Vectorworks calculate the offset distance. To me it seems more like I'm setting the offset distance with "test increment" and then I get whatever slope that is the result of that distance. Pretty much the opposite of what I was hoping for.

 

Maybe it all boils down to the fact that the hardscape needs to be fully above or below the site, but I can't really let that be the deciding factor when designing/grading.