SITE VERSUS SLAB ???

[Philipp Kühne]

Hello Chaps,

We are working on an urban project with a site sloping from around 2-4 meters in different places. Now, do I use the site tool or should I model a slab or maybe a mass and then apply a slab to it ???

I wouldn't mind using the site tool, however we had some problems with it and we lost quite some time on it on another project. So I am bit suspicious about it. The advantage of the site is the subregions which stick directly to the gradients. However in section theses subregions dont show up with a thickness - a bit of pity.

Anyone has a clever idea or the magic trick to it ?

THanks for your suggestions.

Best

[dbaldacchino]

If you want to see the slab thickness, I think your best option is to use a floor and then use shape editing to get the shape you want. The thickness will distort and won't stay constant throughout, but it will give you a better representation as compared to topography. Alternatively you could use in-place massing, however you are stuck with that category and cannot change it to anything else. However you can go a lot more organic forms with it. Any way you choose to go, you have to balance your goals between the 3D aspect and your 2D documentation. Site tools stink when it comes to the latter.

[Mike Sealander]

You might also consider in-place components. That way you can use all the solid and void modeling tools.