Jump to content
  • 7

Grade Tool/Object - Enhanced Functionality Request


ericjhberg

Question

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
53 minutes ago, ericjhberg said:

Landscape Architecture in the US, with some exceptions, revolves around architectural scales for horizontal layout and engineering scales for vertical (i.e. feet and inches for horizontal, decimal feet for vertical).

I support everything you said except this quote.  In my experience around the US and abroad, the vast majority of Landscape, Civil, and Survey use decimal feet (or meters) for site work and engineering scales for plans.  We don't switch to feet/inches (or centi or millimeters) and architectural scale for depiction until we start detailing or doing enlargement plans that are more related to the human scale.  But we are landscape architects, a profession that wants to have one foot on the site and another in the architecture, while we seemingly refuse to standardize 🙂

 

I guess I have stuck with decimal feet as a basis of units in CAD and for layout dimensioning because they are simply easier for data entry, calculation for grading, and on site measuring.  When you factor in the engineers and municipalities are typically providing models in decimal feet which are geolocated, it just becomes more efficient.  Too bad the US isn't metric (though our federal projects are).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0
On 4/22/2022 at 6:14 PM, jeff prince said:

until we start detailing or doing enlargement plans that are more related to the human scale.

 

Thanks @jeff prince for chiming in. I completely agree, but we since we eventually have all our details and human scale elements in the same file, we definitely need to be able to dimension things architecturally from the get go...and I don't like my ADA compliance details reading 2.8333 feet (34") or my horizontal width dimenions reading 5.00 (would prefer 5'-0").

 

If only we were collectively brave enough to go metric...life would be so much simpler.

Link to comment
  • 0
2 hours ago, ericjhberg said:

 

Thanks @jeff prince for chiming in. I completely agree, but we since we eventually have all our details and human scale elements in the same file, we definitely need to be able to dimension things architecturally from the get go...and I don't like my ADA compliance details reading 2.8333 feet (34") or my horizontal width dimenions reading 5.00 (would prefer 5'-0").

 

If only we were collectively brave enough to go metric...life would be so much simpler.

 

You realize you can work in decimal feet(or any unit for that matter) and display your dimensions however you wish right?

Vectorworks handling of units and input is another thing I appreciate over AutoCAD.

 

1030890862_ScreenShot2022-04-25at3_06_46PM.thumb.png.7e70645be89ac77e9979874379f617a7.png

Link to comment
  • 0

I do...the problem is this involves a new Dimension Style...and I need to apply it to hundreds of stock design details that are already mapped to Document Unit standards. I'm hoping to avoid that effort. Additionally, this shouldn't be the reason independent unit control in Site Modifers, Site Models, and Grade Objects can't/shouldn't be realized.

Link to comment
  • 0

Some more development ideas:

  • Ability to change the size/look of the slope arrow. It quickly becomes chaotic when working in tighter areas, as seen in the picture below.
  • I often do grading 2D only and on sheet layers/printed drawings I typically only want to show a + symbol with the associated elevation. Currently I can't turn off both "show slope value" and "draw line" to show just the elevation value, and I won't get the + symbol.
  • A great feature that might seem silly but many find really useful in Novapoint is the ability to change the point elevation up and down with the scroll wheel. Together with the related interactive slope values this makes it super fast to tweak elevations in detail. Would love to see this integrated in VW.

 

image.thumb.png.651bdefc000f3d316365683fb2e9cab1.png

Edited by Anders Blomberg
  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0

Agree on editing directly in the OIP.  Also level display each end of grade need to stay where moved t0, often when a new grade is joined or an alteration made they go back to default position.

 

Two further requests:

 

Allow grades to be moved wholesale vertically, then e.g. when an Architect revised FFL it doesn't have to be done manually level by level

 

Radius grades (and maybe even other types of curve) would save loads of time 

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
Answer this question...

×   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...