2007-11-29 05:39 PM
2007-11-29 05:54 PM
David wrote:Glad you started this poll, David. Actually, there were some very strong behind the scenes arguments for this feature after the FPCP first arrived. The design guys in Budapest know that it is a wish...but a poll like this might help emphasize how strongly it is desired.
I just spoke with GS Tech Support and was surprised to find that this was never wished for, so they don't realize that there is this major flaw with the Cut Plane. There are many other issues that also need to be addressed, but that is for another post. BTW, I was told that ADT already has this flexibility.
2007-11-29 06:18 PM
2007-11-29 08:19 PM
2007-11-29 09:01 PM
Karl wrote:I have a feeling this isn't an easy fix. Even in Microstation, which is very flexible in 3D, are VCPs defined per view - it's part of the view definition and can be graphically defined from another (perpendicular) view.
An inconvenient, and far from perfect (joints/intersections, time involved, etc) workaround is to use multiple views, each with a different FPCP height, and then crop and stack those views on a layout to obtain the desired result.
2007-11-30 03:41 AM
2007-11-30 04:29 AM
2007-11-30 07:57 AM
Rob wrote:Exactly. Each region/step would internally have to be treaded as a view of its own, and then seamlessly joined together in the screen floor plan window.
I have run into similar problem (stepped down plans) one year ago and it gave me a real headache.
Anyway, I was discussing this with GS (they are pretty aware of this issue) and indeed it is not an easy fix. The major problems are (as I can recollect) the way of controlling and updating the section plane in terms of the user interface (3D kinks, recesses etc). Each section plane region would have to have it's own setting in terms of visibility upwards/downwards plus it would take some toll in regards to CPU use (filtering all elements by the section plane region heights). Also, the section plane varies by the storey as well so all of that adds up to huge complexity we would have to face to. Well it would be something for GS UI department to handle, however the task itself looks like an overkill for a feature that is admittedly used but not 'life threatening' in terms of a docs workflow.
2008-03-06 02:36 PM
2014-08-04 08:17 AM
David wrote:
The Floor Plan Cut Plane really needs to be more flexible.
Most of our projects are not on level sites. Changes in a single floor level can range from 0' to 12' difference from one end of the building to the other, yet we still need to show the entire floor as one level for documentation. Currently, the single level Cut Plane just doesn't cut it (pardon the pun).
This really is apparent when working on a multi-unit complex that sits on a sloped site. Maybe 2 out of 10 units will look correct from the settings of the single level Cut Plane.
We need to be able to step up/down the Cut Pane at user-defined points (similar to staggering the Section/Elevation cutline in Plan).
I just spoke with GS Tech Support and was surprised to find that this was never wished for, so they don't realize that there is this major flaw with the Cut Plane. There are many other issues that also need to be addressed, but that is for another post. BTW, I was told that ADT already has this flexibility.