Documenting proposed site levels

[Josh Verran]

I'm not sure if I'm using the correct workflow.
I have a sloping site (mesh), I have used a slab and performed a SEO to create a flat building platform.
I then need to add level dimensions to indicate what the proposed levels are.
When I use the level dimension tool, the dimensions only return the original heights, not the new cut heights.

This seems like a silly question, but can the level dimension tool be used to dimension the levels of a cut+fill site?
Or is it a case that we can not (should not) use the SEO to cut meshes?

I'm hoping I'm just using the tools incorrectly.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

[Barry Kelly]

Josh wrote:
The point I was trying to make, is that in the elevations, sections, perspectives, 3D documents etc it is the mesh that is showing, not the SEO and it all looks as expected and intended.

Josh wrote:
Why would we want to have an object appear in all other views as "operated on". But in plan view have zero ability to represent it's true shape?

Sections and elevation are all 3D views, just from a particular angle.
That is why the SEO results show as they can only be seen in 3D.

The 2D (plan) view is not a 3D view, it is somehow recreated based on the model elements, but it ignores SEOs.
I don't know the reason why but I suspect it is a legacy code thing, when Archicad was first written, there were no SEOs to worry about and the 2D view has always been a 'symbolic' view..
You will find new tools like the opening and multi-plane roofs do show the results of SEOs (or connections/trims) in plan.
Eventually the 2D view may be based entirely from the 3D.
Actually you can do this now with 3D documents - but the level dimension tool will not work.
You can copy and paste the mesh contours from the 3D Document back to the floor plan.
Not that that will help with the levels still.


Barry.

[Josh Verran]

Hi Barry

Hopefully one day it will be implemented.
I always find it funny (maybe frustrating is a better word) when I come across things like this from yonks ago.
Why isn't there more focus on "hey these workflows and/or tools are outdated and not functioning the same as newer tools, perhaps we should bring these up to spec before we go creating and developing new tools".
I know the development of these features is no simple task, probably a lot more complicated than I even suspect now. But, it's possible and other features are more complex.

[vdentello]

Josh wrote:
Hi Barry

Hopefully one day it will be implemented.
I always find it funny (maybe frustrating is a better word) when I come across things like this from yonks ago.
Why isn't there more focus on "hey these workflows and/or tools are outdated and not functioning the same as newer tools, perhaps we should bring these up to spec before we go creating and developing new tools".
I know the development of these features is no simple task, probably a lot more complicated than I even suspect now. But, it's possible and other features are more complex.

I do hope for that too. Yet the more i look into this problem i tend to believe it´s not implemented for it has a chance to backfire on performance due to 3 to 2D conversion, as may happen when you have a couple GDL objects that will use Project2 variants.

Funny thing: Roofs behave that way. They'll show SOE in plan.