Two things to keep in mind, though: One, it is possible to vary the thickness and the Z values to create geometrically identical meshes that have different ref plane elevations. The bumps on the top are defined by individual Z values of polygons, polylines, and single points, relative to the ref plane. The bottom of the mesh, which is flat, is positioned by the thickness setting, relative to the ref plane. It is either the top or bottom of either the whole element or the composite's core.įor meshes, the ref plane is more abstract. For slabs, the ref plane has a fixed relationship to the element. Meshes, like slabs, have a reference plane which defines the element's elevation position. We wish for a thickened-surface road-type construction method. The others are only surfaces and can't be used for solid operations. You'll hardly ever use anything but solid. The construction methods of the mesh tool are surface-only, hollow, and solid.
It has a cover fill, but unlike a roof, the fill won't distort along a slope. I very rarely want to see those, and precisely never for a site model.) The mesh doesn't interact with the floor plan cut plane and it doesn't have overhead pens. (There is another pen for the non-user ridges in plan. It's a polygon with three materials and one pen for plan and 3D. Without the bumpiness, it is indistinguishable from a slab. I cover that in more detail in another post, but you need the mesh basics first.Ī mesh is a like a slab with a bumpy top. The most prominent use for the mesh is site modeling. So I thought I would take the opportunity to revise this overview of the tool.
With an assist from Brian Spears and Link Ellis, I figured out that one of my wishes for the mesh tool is already solved.
0 kommentar(er)
