The Global Archicad Community

Stay informed. Get help. Share your knowledge.

Any 2D tool what you need for drafting.

Moderators: Karl Ottenstein, LaszloNagy, ejrolon, Barry Kelly, gkmethy

What's your opinion about this wish?

Essential (5)
2
29%
Important (4)
No votes
0%
Average (3)
4
57%
Not important (2)
No votes
0%
Not needed (1)
1
14%
User avatar
By Dwight
#118175
To The Two Thomases:


You don't just turn doen the magic wand because it still doesn't guarantee a pattern. [Smack]

BTW: This is a total cheat.

Just put a grid on the site.

It takes some judgement to decide on the initial size, but this is a manual technique with future benefits that you learn from experimenting.

It is only applicable to situations when you aren't responsible for cut and fill calculations. You use this when you need a fast model and fast design views, since the objective is to reduce lag time with a small investment of labor.

Assuming a giant development site:
Start with 50mx50m. Look at the result. Assess the model for areas that could benefit from 25mx25m. By the time you do this, the general contour should appear smoothly. Find other areas - perhaps areas you'll be working in rather than background. 10mx10m. By now you should see something that not only follows the contours quite well, but has a regular pattern without illogical nodes. Any rectangle can only have two polygon triangles.....

IE: the simple magic wanding of contours leads to many bridging polygons that needlessly complicate a model without adding to information value.

After this degree of resolution, it is time to address feature details. Here, you can apply control lines to make ditches and add specific nodes to describe heffalump holes and outcrops essential to the design. You might also consider your building plots - don't add nodes in building footprints.
By dmn
#118176
Dwight wrote:My method of site modeling is to create an adaptive grid. It is adaptive because the grids get smaller in steep or complex areas and larger in flatter areas. You place this grid over the site plan and add mesh nodes elevated to match the nearest contour height. Prominent outcroppings get higher detail.

This method creates a plausible site form with a fraction of the nodes, but in doing one, you must be aware of the general location of building areas.
If you do have an idea of the building plots, you can level these areas as you work.
I've built all kinds of topo models before in another program, but that one could do your method automatically. I wouldn't mind putting up a wish for that. I have a time frame and a site size which would make doing that method manually unrealistic.
User avatar
By Dwight
#118179
You have been engaged in the assignment for four hours now and will still be saddled with an illogical and polygon laden model. My method is faster than it looks and pays dividends in 3D navigation speed and section generation time.
By dmn
#118183
Dwight wrote:You have been engaged in the assignment for four hours now and will still be saddled with an illogical and polygon laden model. My method is faster than it looks and pays dividends in 3D navigation speed and section generation time.
...and it would take 3 days to model what I'm modelling to a satisfactory level using your manual method. And I haven't started the assignment yet either/ what's your problem? :?
By dmn
#118190
Around 1.5x2.5 miles of rolling topography (maybe 200 feet of elevation change), including a mountain ridge and a campus with a series of project sites. I've already set up a grid of mesh planes on separate layers (not to be confused with the adaptive grid that might be applied to them) to cut it into smaller chunks. I could see simplifying the mountain using some manual adaptive meshing but the campus needs to be fairly accurate.
User avatar
By TomWaltz
#118197
That sounds like a lot of back-and-forth for something that should be just a simple matter of magic-wanding existing contours.

On a large (over 2 square mile) site, the grid method would take way too long to build.