Is Vectorworks able to do professional grading?

[Anders Blomberg]

6 hours ago, hollister design Studio said:

I think I've been here for about a year.

I'm still continually frustrated about how opaque VW can be.

 

It's so obviously coded be people who are not designers...

 

...but when I step back and look at the projects I've got on the boards, I have to admit, I've learned a lot more than I think I have.

Even though I'm still holding my head in my hands wondering 'what the hell' (pretty much every day!), I've actually successfully created a quite a few very complex projects.

 

There are really good folks on this forum that will go above and beyond to help.

 

 

Hang in there!

 

 

I guess that's both reassuring and worrying 🙂 I'm so glad people take the time here to help out! Are you a landscape architect? Have you managed to produce real graded surfaces and drawings for contractors? I would love to see some examples of what's possible.

[line-weight]

7 hours ago, hollister design Studio said:

I think I've been here for about a year.

I'm still continually frustrated about how opaque VW can be.

 

It's so obviously coded be people who are not designers...

 

...but when I step back and look at the projects I've got on the boards, I have to admit, I've learned a lot more than I think I have.

Even though I'm still holding my head in my hands wondering 'what the hell' (pretty much every day!), I've actually successfully created a quite a few very complex projects.

 

There are really good folks on this forum that will go above and beyond to help.

 

 

Hang in there!

 

 

I've been using Vectorworks for nearly 20 years, and using it "properly" in 3d for maybe 3 years ... and all the above is true for me too.

 

I try and tell myself that it would be the same using any other software ...

[Anders Blomberg]

9 minutes ago, line-weight said:

 

I've been using Vectorworks for nearly 20 years, and using it "properly" in 3d for maybe 3 years ... and all the above is true for me too.

 

I try and tell myself that it would be the same using any other software ...

 

This might be off topic but I've given the choice of software a lot of thought. As I see it my options as a landscape architect are:

 

AutoCAD - the standard for LAs everywhere in Sweden. A hybrid workflow allows us to use point grades in 3D, everything else in is 2D. Very old fashioned.

Civil 3D - Still that annoying old fashioned AutoCAD suite. Good for 3D terrain work but not much else that I need. Complicated.

Revit - the standard for building architects here in Sweden and wonderfully modern. No real functionality for landscape architects, however it can be used for LA with plenty of workarounds or plugins that are half decent.

Novapoint/Quadri - still dependent on that old AutoCAD.

VectorWorks - Well, my hopes were probably up to high but I still hope it will be the best option.

[Anders Blomberg]

@Benson Shaw So I was using multiple aligned hardscapes aligning to each other and, surprise, that didn't work to well. So I took your idea of aligning to a empty layer so I can put modifiers on if and now it works much better! So some hardscapes are aligning to the empty layer to be able to set modifiers, and then others align to those graded hardscapes. We'll see if it's a working solution in the long run.

 

@Tom W. Not a perfect solution but I set the hardscape as a site modifier (top) and can then use the stake as a report for site proposed to get the point elevation of the hardscape. Not using the cut/fills in this project anyways so it doesn't matter to much.

[Tom W.]

11 hours ago, Anders Blomberg said:

Had a look at your snap settings and tried to replicate those as well. I attach both my larger model and the small elevation trial here.

Vega.vwx 62.91 MB · 1 download Point elevation trial.vwx 8.11 MB · 0 downloads

 

Hi @Anders Blomberg I opened your 'Point elevation trial' file + there was definitely something weird going on with that hardscape. I could snap Stakes to its edges + they would report the correct elevations but not when I placed the stakes anywhere else on the top surface. I then changed its elevation (raised it) + this caused it to lose its components + solidity: it looked as if it was in wireframe. So I gave it a slab style + then it displayed components again + textures + also the stakes started behaving as normal:

 

 

 

I also had a look at the Vega file + the stakes were snapping to the surface of the hardscape as normal + reporting the correct elevation from the off so not sure why it's not doing that for you...?

[Anders Blomberg]

On 9/16/2021 at 9:31 PM, Tom W. said:

 

Hi @Anders Blomberg I opened your 'Point elevation trial' file + there was definitely something weird going on with that hardscape. I could snap Stakes to its edges + they would report the correct elevations but not when I placed the stakes anywhere else on the top surface. I then changed its elevation (raised it) + this caused it to lose its components + solidity: it looked as if it was in wireframe. So I gave it a slab style + then it displayed components again + textures + also the stakes started behaving as normal:

 

 

 

I also had a look at the Vega file + the stakes were snapping to the surface of the hardscape as normal + reporting the correct elevation from the off so not sure why it's not doing that for you...?

 

@Tom W. A never ending story this one 🙂 My idea of setting all hardscapes to site modifiers (top) and then use the stakes to report site elevation didn't work out as planned. I guess the geometry is to complicated because when updating the site to adjust for all modifiers the computer just freezes up. I left it working over night last night and that didn't give me any results either. So I'm stuck with this weird method of snapping in 3D. My question is if you get the z-values to update dynamically when changing the hardscapes? Because mine don't, not very BIM to me.

 

Picture of the current state of the model just for reference. Slooooowly getting there I hope.

 

[Laura Stone]

I was given a tip a while back to use landscape areas and not hardscapes for the hard surfaces (just with the plants switched off) and I do find that it works much better.  This was after finding that hardscapes and landscape areas don't play nicely together.  So for angular geometry I use grade networks and for curved areas I have the following workaround:

Make a wall style called 'kerb' (or 'edging') and use a curved wall on the area you want.  Set the top level to the level you want at the one end of the kerb and put into a 3D view.  You can now use the reshape tool to move the other end of the kerb up or down to the correct level.  Now use the 'extract' tool to extract a nurbs curve along the top edge of the kerb and convert it to a 3D polygon.  Close the 3D poly and add any necessary additional vertices.  Move the 3D poly into the Site- DTM - Modifier class to grade the site model.  I have grades at the top and bottom of kerbs which gives a slope between them but use the wall style to represent the kerb and landscape areas for the hard surfaces each side so the slope is not seen in the modelling, only on the site model which I don't export to IFC.

[Benson Shaw]

@Laura Stone Thanks for this.  Will try it out.  I don't like that grade network around curved hardscapes.  An improved align for the aligned slabs would be great.  And/Or some kind of a Grade Along Path in the Surface Mods so I can select a curved edge, or sub segments, and define a constant grade along that path. Or, I guess a variable grade via vertices or stakes or 3d loci along the path.

 

-B

[Anders Blomberg]

@Laura Stone Thanks for the advice! I had the chance to talk to people att VW and they pretty much said the same thing about landscape areas, they currently recommended using them instead of hardscapes. But why do you convert from NURBS to 3D polys after extracting? NURBS work just as well in Site/DTM and don't chop up into straight little pieces. Also, do you know how to update the landscape areas to adjust to a changed site model? Currently I select the area, and change the layer where the area looks for the site and then change back. Kinda tedious when updating multiple areas.

 

@Benson Shaw, yes, I REALLY hope they give us some kind of functionality like that. Currently I'm doing my grading with a combination of site adjusting grades and NURBS in DTM and I really haven't found a way to be very exact when adjusting NURBS. So I start out by laying out my grades with the grade network which acts just as a guide for the NURBS I put in later.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Anders Blomberg

[bob cleaver]

Great job on sharing solutions

To quote Jeff Prince Herę:  "You have to think Vectorworks" when creating solutions that work for you using the tools functionality  

[Jeff Prince]

30 minutes ago, bob cleaver said:

Great job on sharing solutions

To quote Jeff Prince Herę:  "You have to think Vectorworks" when creating solutions that work for you using the tools functionality  

I believe @Pat Stanford gets credit for that mantra, I just adopted it 🙂

[Laura Stone]

On 9/26/2021 at 12:10 AM, Anders Blomberg said:

@Laura Stone Thanks for the advice! I had the chance to talk to people att VW and they pretty much said the same thing about landscape areas, they currently recommended using them instead of hardscapes. But why do you convert from NURBS to 3D polys after extracting? NURBS work just as well in Site/DTM and don't chop up into straight little pieces. Also, do you know how to update the landscape areas to adjust to a changed site model? Currently I select the area, and change the layer where the area looks for the site and then change back. Kinda tedious when updating multiple areas.

 

@Benson Shaw, yes, I REALLY hope they give us some kind of functionality like that. Currently I'm doing my grading with a combination of site adjusting grades and NURBS in DTM and I really haven't found a way to be very exact when adjusting NURBS. So I start out by laying out my grades with the grade network which acts just as a guide for the NURBS I put in later.

Initially it was because I was using only this method and straight geometry 3D polys modifiers. A curbs curve on its own will  mean that the area 'contained' by it is not affected, only the line of it, so by converting a 3D poly I could add vertices to make an enclosed shape that would affect the whole area in question.  I've just done an experiment where I made a curbs a site modifier and then used gradients attached to each end to close the shape and it worked, so thanks for the suggestion

[Pat Stanford]

@jeff prince Thanks for the shout out. I do think you need to (and I do) 'think' like VW. But I am usually using it the other way. If you can't/don't think like VW, then you should be looking for other software. There are a number of much loved Mac developers who I find their much loved software just about impossible to use. I just don't think about problems they way they/it does. I think the same goes for VW. If you can't adjust your thinking to understand the way VW works and be comfortable working that way, you are better of finding a different solution.

 

My $0.02.

[line-weight]

I'm quite happy to "think VW" ... the problems generally come when it's such hard work to figure out what VW is thinking, because the underlying logic is so deeply buried beneath layers of half-baked, inconsistently implemented tools, interfaces and features.

 

Sometimes it seems like all the true lifting power of VW was written 20 or 30+ years ago, and it's quite impressive really that its usefulness has survived in spite of the big mess that's been built upon it since.

[Landartma]

A few questions.  I have read through what your all doing here.  My solutions are normally less complex than what I see here.  What I was getting with align surfaces was one surface or the other but not both.  As if you want to align one hardscape surface with two on either side especially is there is a twist.  I've been working on that for a while now.  I see how @Benson Shaw did it.  It makes sense.  How did you render it.  I have four known corners and I simply need to connect them on a slope that runs along a curve...literally 10'.  I have messed with everything.  There seems to be no easy solution.  

[Anders Blomberg]

Having now finished this project I wanted to revisit this thread with some reflections from the process and further work. As to the question in the topic heading I'm sad to say that I don't feel like the current tools in VW reflect a professional workflow when it comes to grading. As seen in the picture below I managed to create a graded topography but It's was tons of work and what's worse, the model isn't very exact. Finer grading with 1-2% in multiple directions require specific tools that are more exact then the approximations that I had to resort to with this project. There are no flat areas at all in the model to allow for proper drainage of the site and that creates a complex model. We do need a huge improvement in tools for site grading/modelling if the software wants to cater for the work most landscape architects do here in Sweden. I've since stopped modelling in 3D for detailed designs as I'm just not able to get the results and workflows needed, specifically in grading. I'm really hoping VW will improve in this area sooner rather than later and I've been in touch with with helpful people at VW but I'm worried this will take a long time to develop.

 

For the project I managed to model a decent graded topography but pretty much gave up on on the 3D work in the end and just drew stuff in 2D to get it on paper.

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Anders Blomberg

[Jeff Prince]

On 3/10/2022 at 3:33 AM, Anders Blomberg said:

Having now finished this project I wanted to revisit this thread with some reflections from the process and further work. As to the question in the topic heading I'm sad to say that I don't feel like the current tools in VW reflect a professional workflow when it comes to grading.

 

Reading what I have typed below, this is neither an endorsement of Vectorworks, nor questioning your ability.  Simply furthering the discussion.

 

I agree that the site modeling tools in Vectorworks could use some serious enhancement to be an effective documentation tool, and a complete overhaul to become a design tool for the masses.  But do you think the issues faced on this project have more to do with being new to the software and essentially having 6 months of experience with it while trying to get your business off the ground?  It’s hard enough being a one man band, learning software on top of those demands and doing fine detail site modeling a pretty heavy lift.

 

I’m impressed with your progress and achievement, I can see where a few of those items were difficult.

 

Civil 3D, Revit, and Vectorworks all require a pretty substantial time investment in learning how to use the tools properly (and improperly) to find your groove.  Each software leaves a bit to be desired in different parts of the process.  Now, when you take a new person and drop them into any of those softwares, it seems like it takes most people to get a solid 250 to 500 hours of specific experience before they become somewhat productive, significantly more to tackle challenging problems.  With that kind of time, one could grade a hundred or more sites like yours by hand 🙂 

 

The promise of landscape BIM software is largely a documentation system that still has a very long ways to go before it can be an effective design tool.

[Anders Blomberg]

I'm happy to further the discussion and I hope I still have lot's to learn in the software! I would love to be proved wrong about this and would love to see a nice workflow for modelling a graded surface. I guess I could elaborate a little on what I would want to call it professional.

1. Ability to exactly model/grade according to set parameters.
2. An efficient workflow.

I have not completely given up on the first point and currently have my hopes in Marionette, although I'm not very optimistic about it. For the second point I don't see that we're anywhere near an efficient workflow.

 

My workflow for the model created above is basically:

1. Grade the site using the grade tool in 2D.
2. Lay out geometry such as NURBS, polylines etc in 3D to try and build up the final grade. Walls and curbs created using wall tool and extrude along path.
3. Put geometry in Site/DTM class and update the site.
4. Define landscape areas to let them follow proposed site. 
5. Lay out grades/+elevations needed for the paper drawing deliveries as stakes.

This was the recommended workflow from a pragmatic VW-employee and I haven't seen any workflow that is better for achieving the results wanted. The workflow is tedious and not very exact. One problem is the horrific triangulation I get from the NURBS, as seen below. Making changes to the model is not very smooth either and the typical design process normally requires a lot of iterations so this should be taken into account.

 

 

There really should be much more dedicated tools for this. I do agree that you should expect a couple of hundred of hours to get into a new complex software like this, but I don't even see the tools to learn in VW.

 

I can only speak for how we work in Sweden but I also miss some basic symbols tied to grading. Mainly the slope symbol shown below. These define the sloped area from a (possibly also sloped) break line to another break line (often current soil) and I typically want to define the slope as perhaps 1:3. The slopes are tied to costs for the contractor as the cut/fill will vary with the slope and the geotechnical properties of the soil might also demand different slopes. So this is vital for a professional looking drawing, and I currently don't see any tools for this. I realise symbols might vary with national standards so I do understand that it's tough for VW to provide for everyone but we are used to it from other softwares. Answering my client that my current software doesn't support the standards is pretty much asking to get kicked out ot the project.

 

 

Lots to say on this topic and happy to keep the discussion going!

Edited March 16, 2022 by Anders Blomberg

[Jeff Prince]

2 hours ago, Anders Blomberg said:

I'm happy to further the discussion and I hope I still have lot's to learn in the software! I would love to be proved wrong about this and would love to see a nice workflow for modelling a graded surface. I guess I could elaborate a little on what I would want to call it professional.

1. Ability to exactly model/grade according to set parameters.
2. An efficient workflow.

I have not completely given up on the first point and currently have my hopes in Marionette, although I'm not very optimistic about it. For the second point I don't see that we're anywhere near an efficient workflow.

 

My workflow for the model created above is basically:

1. Grade the site using the grade tool in 2D.
2. Lay out geometry such as NURBS, polylines etc in 3D to try and build up the final grade. Walls and curbs created using wall tool and extrude along path.
3. Put geometry in Site/DTM class and update the site.
4. Define landscape areas to let them follow proposed site. 
5. Lay out grades/+elevations needed for the paper drawing deliveries as stakes.

This was the recommended workflow from a pragmatic VW-employee and I haven't seen any workflow that is better for achieving the results wanted. The workflow is tedious and not very exact. One problem is the horrific triangulation I get from the NURBS, as seen below. Making changes to the model is not very smooth either and the typical design process normally requires a lot of iterations so this should be taken into account.

 

 

There really should be much more dedicated tools for this. I do agree that you should expect a couple of hundred of hours to get into a new complex software like this, but I don't even see the tools to learn in VW.

 

I can only speak for how we work in Sweden but I also miss some basic symbols tied to grading. Mainly the slope symbol shown below. These define the sloped area from a (possibly also sloped) break line to another break line (often current soil) and I typically want to define the slope as perhaps 1:3. The slopes are tied to costs for the contractor as the cut/fill will vary with the slope and the geotechnical properties of the soil might also demand different slopes. So this is vital for a professional looking drawing, and I currently don't see any tools for this. I realise symbols might vary with national standards so I do understand that it's tough for VW to provide for everyone but we are used to it from other softwares. Answering my client that my current software doesn't support the standards is pretty much asking to get kicked out ot the project.

 

 

Lots to say on this topic and happy to keep the discussion going!

How did you achieve your 3D modeling of sites like this prior to Vectorworks?  What hoops did you have to jump thru to depict your slopes with that hatch pattern you are showing?  Did they generate automatically based on slope and orientation, or did you have to hatch/scale/rotate them in your previous software?  Two processes, 3D modeling and 2D documentation….  More later, I actually get to set some real stakes on a site this AM 🙂

[Anders Blomberg]

The slope symbol can automatically be generated along with a 3D-surface in both Civil 3D and Novapoint. It's one process, defined be exact parameters, that's the whole point. So it's not by jumping through any hoops, don't know why you'd assume that? In VW I'm currently drawing the pattern by hand.

[Jeff Prince]

2 hours ago, Anders Blomberg said:

The slope symbol can automatically be generated along with a 3D-surface in both Civil 3D and Novapoint. It's one process, defined be exact parameters, that's the whole point. So it's not by jumping through any hoops, don't know why you'd assume that? In VW I'm currently drawing the pattern by hand.

Good luck to you.  There was no assumption, simply a question.