Jump to content

Should we use Landscape Areas for 'all' hardscapes?


Recommended Posts

This is a question I repeatedly ask myself as I'm setting up a new project.

 

I tend to use:

  • Slabs for pavers and flat concrete and wood decks
  • Hardscape objects for DG or Peastone areas.
  • Landscape areas for anything with any kind of slope.

But I'm starting to think I'm to hung up on the tool 'names' and should be thinking more about the usage.

 

 

Doing a little deep diving into the forums, I saw that @Scott Lebsack mentioned in another thread "...the tool could be called "Surface Area" tool because it does so well defining an area on a site model surface regardless of what that area is defining..."

 

I remember a video that @Tamsin Slatter did where she mentioned how she loved using LA's for many things that weren't planting beds - I couldn't find the video for a real quote - I think it was about complexly graded driveways...

 

 

Just wondering what people are using for various hardscape objects for ease of drawing, data collection, data tagging etc...

Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

The use of landscape areas for "hardscapes" is something I picked up from our Marketing and training folks. The Landscape Area tool has some features that would be helpful for hardscapes, it is able to "excavate" a surface model to provide a more accurate cut/fill volume, my understanding is that this is necessary for BIM workflows. It also allows a user to grade the site model directly to finish grades, and have the "hardscapes" match the grades, rather than trying to grade the site model and hardscape separately and keep them consistent as a design evolves, or use hardscapes to grade a site model. It's nice to have hardscapes separate from the grading of the site model.

 

In general I try to keep items by style if they effect material takeoffs - volumes/thickness/types anything annotative can by by instance. That way if I change the physical characteristics of my style everything updates. I do the same with plants, if it should be a different line in the schedule it should be a different style. I haven't completed any production work in the past 8 mo., but while I was in a design office I was convinced attributes by class was the only way to work - in content development with Vectorworks, we never use class attributes, I would have to go back to production to try it by instance to know...

  • Like 4
Link to comment

A bit of mystery to me:

Creation of the 1st LA in a file containing a Terrain automatically spawns the new class Site>Landscape Area>Spec.
1.  Does it have special properties? eg something similar to effects of Site>DTM> Modifier on 3d polys and NURBS curves?
2. What is intent and common use case for this class?
      eg assign to component materials?
3. What is abbreviation?
         Specification?  Special? 

 

So many options!

 

-B

 

728841804_SiteDTMLASpec.jpg.cbdc33f37805e688b0009f4724f542dc.jpg

Link to comment

This class controls the visibility + appearance of the LA tag.

 

Similarly Hardscapes generate the 'Site-Hardscape Comp-Spec' class for their tags. 

 

Stair objects also auto-create a couple of '-Spec' classes too for the walk line + headroom outline.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Another consideration for use of Landscape areas instead of slabs or hardscapes.  I believe they need to be present on same layer as the site model and located within the extents of the terrain to conform to the terrain.  Move the LA away from the terrain, or place on another layer, and the LA reverts to a flattened volume, at Datum height, on the layer plane.

 

Not necessarily a problem, because visibility can be controlled by class of the LA and/or the LA components.  But it is different from true site modifiers which can be isolated on separate layers.

 

If there is need to work with the volume shaped by the terrain, then some conversion to solid geometry is necessary.  Again, not a failing of vwx, but needs some forethought and strategy.  eg. Work with a Duplicate LA. Convert to Group or Ungroup. Result is a Mesh and a group containing the 3d poly perimeter of the LA.

 

-B

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Thanks, once again, @jeff prince!  I stand corrected and hope my claim was not misleading to anyone.

In my defense - Doh!  I sent my LA from DTM layer to an empty layer which was previously designated to modify the DTM via the Select Layers option.  Then I changed name of that layer to indicate the LA.  Then I tested and found the LA did not modify the DTM.  Problem was the new name caused the DTM settings to uncheck that layer in the modifying list.  Strangely, the layer name updated in the modifying list, but the designation automatically unchecked.  It tripped me up, but I can't decide if this is a problem or a benefit? Seems a little inconsistent.

 

-B

 

491316844_LAMods.thumb.jpg.6adb0c460ab53b15e6bbc22b44b64f10.jpg

Edited by Benson Shaw
just dropped in for a visit
  • Like 3
Link to comment

 

Going back through some of these comments and I was struck by this.

 

On 6/23/2022 at 1:03 AM, Anders Blomberg said:

...landscape areas combined with geometry adjusting the site in the Site-DTM-modifer class is the best solution I've resorted to so far...

 

Since I first posted this I've "refined" my workflow to use hardscapes for anything with a specific grade - whether flat or sloped- and using the "aligned surfaces" (with "selected layers" but with no layers checked) and then using "edit surface modifiers" and stakes and grades inside the hardscape surface modifier editing space.

 

Your process simplifies this by keeping all the surface modifiers in one place and as DTM modifiers.

 

This is a bit brilliant!

 

I realized I was using DTM modifiers AND hardscape surface modifiers and having to remember what was doing what and where...

Plus the whole hardscape surface modifier editing space is just awkward and seemed to crash VW more often than not....

 

I will be giving this a shot on my next project!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
On 7/11/2022 at 8:24 PM, jeff prince said:

@Benson Shawno worries, thanks to you guys for having the conversation, it motivated me to test the workflow out.  That’s the nice thing about the forum, a virtual office where we all keep pushing each other forward 🙂

Hear hear - I'm not currently working on anything that needs this, but watching the conversation with interest for future ref, thanks all for sharing your experiences and learnings!

  • Like 3
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
Reply to this topic...

×   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...