Hi, sometimes i work in strange ways, duplicating a major piece of my work into another file, but then further duplicating that one, but in the same (same 2nd) file so i can do trial and error trimming/moving/etc which will be copied to the 2nd parent (in the same, 2nd drawing file), before it all goes piece by piece into the 1st parent (1st file).

Let's use my drawing as an example.

In image 01 is the port side (left side) elevation. In image 02 is the plan view. So far, it seems easy enough to translate/displace copies of parts. But, when i select things incorrectly, i find i am on the wrong z level or something. It would be nice if the hulls could be side by side without selecting parts in the background. Since i as yet cannot do that, i have to displace the working model's copy down on the z axis to get the 2nd parent out of the way. See image 03.

But, when i want to verify locations based on a baseline, there is no easy way, since the geometry doesn't seem to be drawable to a 2nd, reference plane. So, if something is to be at z 9.045 based on the parent, the copy's measurements will be at some negative z value.

So, i though about drawing a wall, but even a solid wall display muted but distracting parts, forcing me to turn layers on and off multiple times.

I thought then that it would be great if Tim and Team could enable us to draw an opaque or translucent "wall" with "barrier" properties. No, not a cutting plane, and not the other planar tools (well, unless i am not correctly using the tools and maybe i am using bad drawing technique...). So, if in image 04 i draw a "wall" between the two areas of geometry, i would then be able to go to a view in which the wall is not really visible (front view/bow view), zoom and pan around as needed, and select items. Then, i could go to a side view and inspect and measure or move things around and select and move as if there were no geomety in the background, because "the Wall" is there for me.

Good idea? Bad idea? Any better ideas?

Thanks for reading/thinking about this...

Thanks.

But, i'm kind of worried about tool fragmentation. I guess it's good to have various tools in one's kit, though.

Then again... Have you had a chance to import dxf 3D meshes or STL meshes into Banzai? I'm still pained that all i can do with the mesh is change its type and select for looking at the grids and changing colors. I really, really ache that i cannot select it and use it as a cutting surface, and cannot cut it with solid or another surface.

Currently,i have to decompose the stl mesh, and i end up with hundreds of facets. I join back together, then have the propeller shaft be the object cutting the joined mesh. The, the join decomposes and i have to rejoin the remaining stuff. Quite laborious. In the span of time i spent on the STL mesh, i forgot what my experience with the DXF 3D mesh was when cutting holes for the shaft.

Because the surface-like manipulation of mesh is not "Punch's (ViaCAD's) forte", and we cannot silicon-mold-like create a surface based on using a mesh, i cannot use the intersecting deck surfaces to generate decks ending at desired stations. So, i have to use DELFTShip's waterline tool to output DXF polylines and then create a surface within that boundary. But, i have to use the solid of the transverse bulkheads as trimming points all along 500 feet of surface at 13 stations. Then i end up with all these lines i have to make surfaces between bulkheads (because the single, larger surface is broken down into hundreds of facets i cannot cope with, so i discard it after i get the intersections of the bulkheads on the large, single surface...) for so i can create a solid (I need the surfaces to get deck area for equipment distribution calcs, and i don't want to get surface area from the solid deck plate because IIRC i get not a top or bottom surface or side area, but total for the part...)...

The DXF lines i use to create surface then have to be deleted or turned off or kept for later troubleshooting, adding to overhead in the file. I'm tired, hungry, and need to take my lunch, and bouncing this around in my head is just making me tired overall... I hope what i wrote/expressed makes sense...

I will have to revisit that. And, i'll have to write Marcus for a new key as i've got a new laptop as of December.

As for bashing my head against the wall, i probably used the wrong approaches to getting PolyCAD to do some things i want. I felt vanquished and intimidated by the menu/tree/GUI and while i see the power(s) vested in PolyCAD, i felt vastly humbled. It doesn't *look* like one need be an engineer or even a CAD expert, so it must be me. I might have gotten surfaces, but must be that i got hung up on too many things all at one time and just got de-energized.

Yeh, having the stations and waterlines not intersect in VCP causes me grief. I suppose that at the tiny sub-millimeter gaps involved, it wouldn't matter in real life since welding would likely close those gaps. But, if i were being graded in a class or critiqued by my supervisor, it would be another reason for me to be scolded for not doing my hobby in ACAD, which would have payoff benefits for me in my day-work abilities. But, i'm stubborn, and VCP is the tool that matches my psyche better than ACAD. And, for every one person resisting the intertia of AD/ACAD, the less likely our universe will implode, hehehe... Choice is good, me thinks....

Again, thanks for pointing out PolyCAD's capability. For ID (initial design) I use D/S, and i probably should more systematically revisit PolyCAD and make it part of my tool kit. For drafting, VCP.

Thanks, Zumer