Labelling slopes: Architects’ and Civil Engineers’ help requested!

[john_mcclenahan]

Steve @slbaumgartner now has a basic prototype working which puts a triangle in proportion, with rise and run showing with the run defaulting to 12, and the symbol size to 12" (run length in the model).

It works on edges or faces, and overcomes a known bug in which inferencing can become confused and put the marker in the wrong place if an off-edge or off-face inference is picked up instead of the edge, midpoint, or on-face inference highlighted by the inferencing engine.

It works on components or groups nested to any depth, and for any directions of axis of model or component/group.

Before going further with the user interface and options, I’ve tried to summarise what I’ve learnt from responses to this thread (thank you all) and a few other sources about how different people want to display slope markers on their drawings - whether in plan, elevation, or 3d model.

This is what I’ve come up with so far. (Click on the image to enlarge it to a legible size, or download the PDF)

Slope marker styles.pdf (189.8 KB)

The use of what I have called an Inverted triangle or lines for edge slope marks is limited, so we don’t plan to implement that unless there’s a strong call for it.

And (not shown) if you use an Equilateral Triangle mark on a face with the slope ‘down the page’ in a plan view, the text should show mostly ‘right way up’ as in Angular Dimension 2 for angle text.

Are there any other symbols or marking styles that I’ve missed, that anyone uses, not covered by these ones?

Are there any in this list you don’t see any need for?

These are the options we suggest developing:
Edge marker symbol

• Triangle (initial default) [Skip the inverted options at least for now]
• Rise & run lines [i.e., no hypotenuse]
• None (text only)

Face marker symbol (on the face: points down the steepest slope ‘the way the water runs’)

• Equilateral triangle [initial default]
• Long arrow [text parallel to arrow shaft]
• Short arrow [text in line behind arrow shaft]

Marker text

• Rise and run (edges only) [If selected with None for edges, or for face, use Ratio instead]
• Ratio y:x
• Fraction y/x
• Percent %
• Degrees °

Other parameters:

• Run denominator (as integer) - default to 12 in US Customary or Imperial units (Architectural or Fractional Inch in SU), or 100 in metric units
• Marker size (as a length) - default to 12" or 300mm depending on units
• Marker offset from edge (as fraction of marker size), normal to the edge and in a vertical plane through it
• Text scale (as fraction of marker size) OR
• Text height (as a length) If > 0 overrides text scale

The run denominator would be shown as an integer, and the rise or angle to whatever precision is set in Model Info/Units.

Would that cover the options you can foresee wanting?

Pinging previous respondents:
@Neil_Burkholder, @Box, @Geo, @bmike, @Anssi, @JQL, @MobelDesign, @barry_milliken_droid, @simoncbevans, @Ccaponigro, @Anssi, @Lindsey

[Charlie_v]

Roof: Ridge/Hip/Valley notation is something I often see “in plan” though rarely use myself. I understand this is something a simple note can be used for… so please ignore if not something you wish to integrate.

C

[john_mcclenahan]

@Charlie_v

Roof: Ridge/Hip/Valley notation is something I often see “in plan” though rarely use myself

Is this just putting a note on an edge, to indicate what kind of edge it is? I.e., just **one ** of Ridge, Hip or Valley?

For that, I’d use just a Text label, or 3D Text or a FlatText plugin if you don’t want it to be SU FaceMe text. And it’s hard for the program to work out which it is.

But thanks for the input.

[Charlie_v]

@john_mcclenahan

Is this just putting a note on an edge, to indicate what kind of edge it is? I.e., just **one ** of Ridge, Hip or Valley?

Yes…some images above include text in plan…simply calling out the Ridge(s)/Valley(s)/Hip(s)
I just thought if it was easily included by what you are doing it would be a nice option…not a programmer but can understand it can/would be difficult.

C

[john_mcclenahan]

It would require a user input for the text to add, and we could put it on another line parallel to the slope dimension text and offset from it.

Consider it logged as a Feature Request, but probably not in versions before or up to v1.0!

[simoncbevans]

@john_mcclenahan

Are there any in this list you don’t see any need for?

I can only speak for myself but I wouldn’t see the need for both Ratio and Fraction. I also see no need for the Percent option, mainly because I can’t see your average builder understanding that every time.

If I were designing this for myself, I would just have the Triangle option and see if I could get the degree option within the triangle itself, like this:

Untitled.pages.pdf (7.0 KB)

[JQL]

I, on the other hand would use percent, ratio and fraction, but not angle.

Would this be easy to assign to a specific Layer, so it would be possible to isolate it by scene and make it dashed?

[RTCool]

@simoncbevans

I also see no need for the Percent option…

True, as an architect, I haven’t used percent, but I bet its useful for site design. I remember my LA friends in school doing slope analysis for sites by measuring the distance between contours on a map and then color coding with magic marker how steep the slope was. OK, so there’s a future feature to think about: labeling slope by coloring the faces?

[john_mcclenahan]

@JQL

Would this be easy to assign to a specific Layer,

Each symbol or text marker is already being assigned a scene-specific layer <scene name> EdgeSlopeMarker or <scene name> FaceSlopeMarker.

If there are no scenes defined, then the scene name is No scene.

It’s turned on in the scene where you assign the slope markers, and off in all other scenes.

When you come to making scenes for elevations or plans, you can turn on the relevant layer to display the markers - edge markers in elevation(s), and face markers in plan(s).

[JQL]

That’s perfect!

Will we be able to change layer name defaults?

[john_mcclenahan]

We weren’t planning to make that a user settable parameter, but could, I suppose…

Why might you want to?

Of course, you could change it manually in the Layers panel after adding slope markers.

[JQL]

But if I change it manually won’t the plugin add a new layer when placing new tags?

I wouldn’t mind changing it manually once per project, but having to keep changing it would be a no go.

[john_mcclenahan]

Yes, if you added more markers afterwards…

Let’s see, then, if we can add a user settable default layer name.

But I still ask, “Why would you want to change it, and to what other name?”

[MikeWayzovski]

@john_mcclenahan

But I still ask, “Why would you want to change it, and to what other name?”

You asked architects for input…

[john_mcclenahan]

We’ll see if we can easily get it into v1.1, if not v1.0, then!

[JQL]

Hi John,

I’ve been using the plugin for a complex project and thougth about two requests:

1. Use the upright triangle with percentage on edges, like this:
   

   

2. Select multiple edges or faces and use the tool would result in the plugin automatically assigning Slope Markers to their centre.

3. Use the new Overlay feature to draw labels dynamically over the screen, while we are modeling inside a context. If geometry would change, these labels would also change.

Best and thanks for such a handy tool.

[slbaumgartner]

Hi Joao,

I did the coding for this extension so John asked me to reply. Amazing! It was four years ago when we built that.

As I recall this extension hit a ton of logic special cases that made it quite complex. Much messier than it might seem. That particularly affects your third idea about overlays.

In your first item, am I right that you are asking for the “inverted triangle” (see an earlier post in this topic with a chart of styles and terms)? If so, this was something we considered back when doing the use case survey and left out because almost nobody said they use it. I’ll take a look to see how complicated it would be to add it. If it’s easy, I’ll do it.

The second idea would require pre-selection of edges and faces before firing the code like a command rather than an interactive tool. I’ll need to think about how to keep the two modes separate without creating a confusing UX, but it seems possible.

While the third idea sounds cool, it presents a flock of technical challenges that might be difficult to overcome. Other than giving dynamic feedback as you draw, what would be the goal? I haven’t coded an overlay, but my understanding is that they draw graphics or text to the screen without adding any actual content to the model. So, overlays of slope markers would be temporary things that would not appear on exports including 2D images and send to layout. Can you say more about how you would use such overlays in your workflow?

[JQL]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for chimming in and thanks again for the original plugin. It’s very helpful.

@slbaumgartner

In your first item, am I right that you are asking for the “inverted triangle” (see an earlier post in this topic with a chart of styles and terms)? If so, this was something we considered back when doing the use case survey and left out because almost nobody said they use it. I’ll take a look to see how complicated it would be to add it. If it’s easy, I’ll do it.

Yes, I was talking about that inverted triangle. The request I had was to use that with percent on top, instead of rise and runner values. I can live with either triangle or inverted triangle, but inverted triangle feels natural too me, at least while modelling. This isn’t possible at the moment. Using percent is only possible if the mark is exclusively text, but then you miss the triangle to help you see which side the slope is facing.

What is really important to me is that I have a way of knowing which side the slope is facing when using percent. In 3D this is sometimes very hard to know. If you look at the image below, I’m sure you can’t tell which side the slope is facing:

The triangle helps with that, as even if the slope is very low I can zoom in the triangle. The inverted triangle feels natural to me. However, if you use the triangle, you are forced to have the rise and runner texts along it. That returns too much info:

@slbaumgartner

The second idea would require pre-selection of edges and faces before firing the code like a command rather than an interactive tool. I’ll need to think about how to keep the two modes separate without creating a confusing UX, but it seems possible.

In terms of UX, I think having a pre selection and hitting the button you already have, would result in automatic placement of marks. I think any user would understand what’s happening very easily, as they would still have the active tool to keep marking if they wanted.

@slbaumgartner

Other than giving dynamic feedback as you draw, what would be the goal? … So, overlays of slope markers would be temporary things that would not appear on exports including 2D images and send to layout.

That’s exacty what I need. The images above are from this project:

As you can see the road, in the middle, has a lot of triangles. I have to guarantee that in any part of the sidewalk any slope isn’t higher than 8%.

Right now, what I can do, is mark each triangle manually. However, as soon as I fine tune the surface, the triangles change their slope.

I then have to erase them and manually mark them again.

Preselecting and marking would help, but dynamically seeing the overlay would be even more helpful.

In the final presentation, in this case, I don’t need to actually mark any triangle, what I need is to mark elevation tags on specific points like the building’s footprints or the curves that generate the surfaces.

However, while working, I need the slope markings so I can check what I’m doing and know everything is abiding to the 8% rule.

Thanks in advance and thanks for your interest in the requests.

[slbaumgartner]

Progress report:

The first idea is implemented and, subject to further testing, working for edges. I did not implement the inverted triangle - that would be a lot more work. Maybe someday… Were you thinking of this for faces too, or is the existing behavior ok for them?

I think I see a way to do the second idea, but as a batch command: create the selection using the Selection Tool (or something), then fire the command to put slope markers on all selected edges and faces (from a button or menu item to be added to the extension). Presumably you have some simple way to select all the desired edges or faces, since otherwise the process could be quite tedious!

I don’t think there is a sensible way to integrate this with the interactive Slope Markers tool because the process of selecting the things to mark using that tool would offer no advantage over simply adding the markers as you click things, in fact it would require an extra step!

I still need to study overlays to see whether the third idea is feasible.

[JQL]

@slbaumgartner

The first idea is implemented and, subject to further testing, working for edges. I did not implement the inverted triangle - that would be a lot more work. Maybe someday… Were you thinking of this for faces too, or is the existing behavior ok for them?

That is great!

I’m happy with arrows for faces. I wouldn’t mind having the option to point arrows up or down though. I usually point my ramps up and my roofs down. Having an arrow that totally fits the face from top to bottom would be great for ramps (this is another thing though).

@slbaumgartner

I think I see a way to do the second idea, but as a batch command: create the selection using the Selection Tool (or something), then fire the command to put slope markers on all selected edges and faces (from a button or menu item to be added to the extension). Presumably you have some simple way to select all the desired edges or faces, since otherwise the process could be quite tedious!

Selection is not an issue and a batch tool would be great.

@slbaumgartner

I don’t think there is a sensible way to integrate this with the interactive Slope Markers tool because the process of selecting the things to mark using that tool would offer no advantage over simply adding the markers as you click things, in fact it would require an extra step!

No problem. It was just a thought.

@slbaumgartner

I still need to study overlays to see whether the third idea is feasible.

If you would manage to do it, that would be a great asset for people doing this kind of work on complex topography. I’d think parking, complex ramps and roofs would also greatly benefit from this possibility.

Again, I can’t thank you enough for this!

João