Kevin McAllister
-
Posts
5,158 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Marionette
Store
Posts posted by Kevin McAllister
-
-
A great wish. Look at the implementation in Cinema 4D or the new FormZ beta 7. Simpler, fast and more efficient..... that's what's needed.
KM
-
John,
The only way I know how to do what you're looking for is with NURBS surfaces or planar surfaces. With NURBS, you can use Stitch and Trim surfaces in the Modelling menu (3D Power Pack I think, my menu is customized) to make the NURBS into a solid once you have all the faces.
I have been playing with a beta version of FormZ recently that will do what you want pretty easily. See this wish list thread for examples - http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=163641&Searchpage=1&Main=33196&Words=formZ&Search=true#Post163641
The advantage it has over something like Sketchup is that it is a true solids modeller. I've been playing with a back and forth workflow between it and Vectorworks and things translate pretty seamlessly. If you do a lot of blocked in models it may be worth checking out, especially at the moment as its a free public beta.
Let us know how you make out.
Cheers,
Kevin
-
It would be great if when it was inserted, the crop object was automatically assigned to a crop object class.
KM
-
Are any of the elements scaled symbols? I've had issues with how they appear in Viewports....
KM
-
Yes, that's a workaround I use all the time.
I am wishing for a proper tool. FormZ essentially adds these elements to a surface as breaks in the object, allowing you the option to push/pull them, texture them differently etc.
KM
-
I would like an "Imprint" tool like the one found in FormZ 7. (Yes, there are work arounds, but a proper tool would be great.)
I often find myself wanting to "imprint" 2D lines and curve geometry into the faces of 3D objects.
Kevin
-
Zuken86,
What version of Vectorworks are you using? How did you "join" the two arcs together? It seems to work as expected in VW2012.
In your case it is actually working but its acting as if the polygon is a closed shape (the circles are evenly spaced around the figure 8 the closed shape creates, the centre circle is actually on the invisible straight path).
Kevin
-
So I think there's an easier way in your situation.
Draw each of your rectangles as per your layout. Extrude them all together as one extrude. Map your image texture using planar mapping. You should be able to use the attribute mapping tool to align, scale and rotate your texture. Note that "top" in texture mapping seems to be the plane which you extruded from, not necessarily the top view. Once you have the texture the way you want it you can choose ungroup. Each of your panels will become an individual extrude but the image mapping will hold position so each one will still be the correct piece of the whole image.
Kevin
-
Benson,
I used to feel the same way and avoided solid additions, especially multiple additions or subtractions nested into each other. I have found that in the last few versions of Vectorworks solids operations have become much more stable. I too have changed my workflow accordingly.
Kevin
-
I'm not sure that I understand how those things figure into this equation. They should not get in the way of an efficient working environment. If the programming is such that they do, it should be re-written in a modern way. People are interacting with their 3D models on iPads and mobile phones, computing power shouldn't be the issue.
I've only scratched the surface of FormZ so I can't tell you its full capabilities (I've noted its shortcoming in presentation above). It does have layers, attributes, accurate size, location, components (symbols), scenes (save views), and an animation timeline. It also has a history of how an object is created. It seems to me in some ways its actually tracking more information about its objects. I also discovered many of these features are available in its little brother Bonzai, which is under $500. It couldn't replace Vectorworks in my workflow but has caused me to want more for my money.
FormZ is certainly not alone (Spaceclaim and others have already been mentioned). Compare something like Cinema 4D. The information and parameters it tracks about objects are many, yet modelling is fast and efficient there (though its polygon modelling, not solids modelling like FormZ).
My guess is the parasolid engine is capable but much of the legacy code between it and the end user is holding things back.
This is a great discussion to have. Ultimately the wish is for Vectorworks to catch up and become competitive.
Architecture is only one of many industries that Vectorworks is used in. The base program needs to be competitive in a more broad based way.
Kevin
-
Ultimately my point is Nemetzchek needs to be fearless in jettisoning what doesn't work, fixing the user interface and getting current. I too have been using the beta of FormZ and its so easy to figure out and quite powerful. Its not quite ready for prime time and as far as I can tell it lacks many of the presentation/workflow management tools needed to use it for a full project end to end.
If you look at the price point difference, Vectorworks should be all that at the basic level plus so much more. The parasolid engine must be at least as powerful as the 3D engine in FormZ, mustn't it?
The challenge in my business is that every project has different needs. I need to model architectural stuff (venues and realistic set pieces), 12m high draped cloth mountains that I can unfold, and the head of a sphinx that I can produce contours for. But I also need the sheet and presentation tools to create detailed drawing sets.
Kevin
-
Bruce,
This is exactly why I keep reverting back to working in Screen Plane only. I wish the \ toggle toggled Automatic / Layer / Screen instead of just turning Automatic on and off.
It totally is a mess. The screen mode snaps are so much more useful than the 3D snaps which are really only half functional. And of course anyone who worked in 3D before the screen/layer plane addition is totally dependent on these snaps as part of a workflow...
Kevin
-
Some more examples in this second video -
http://www.vectorworking.com/video/discover-formz-7-part-2-visualization-rendering-fabrication-and
including unfolding, dynamic sections, etc.
As a long time Vectorworks user (since Minicad 5) I am starting to feel like we are being left behind as all these other products leap frog ahead in usability. Ironically I found these FormZ videos posted on the Vectorworking page. From them it looks as though it actually could become a Vectorworks competitor at a $1200 price point....
Kevin
-
Sam,
I couldn't agree more. I was fighting with both stair tools earlier today trying to get the result I wanted.
Even in the new FormZ beta there is a parametric stair that seems to update instantaneously -
It really is time Vectorworks caught up with the crowd....
Kevin
-
There are some amazing things in this video of the beta version of FormZ 7. I love that they were fearless enough to redesign their interface, clearly something Nemetzchek could learn from.
All of the parametrics seem so easily adjustable in real time and in 3D. Imagine a workflow where modelling was this simple and paired with Vectorworks sheet layers and presentation capabilities.
Kevin
http://www.vectorworking.com/video/discover-formz-7-part-1-parametric-modeling-in-a-modern-interface
-
A good wish.
I was recently able to create a EAP containing multiple object and was surprised that it worked. This may be a new thing in VW 2012.
Kevin
-
I experimented a bit with your file. The problem is when you select everything and convert to NURBS, its creating NURBS curves from the 3D polygons not NURBS surfaces (not sure why that is, seems like a bug to me to convert a poly "surface" to a NURBS curve). Try this -
- select each individual strip of your object, one at a time, and choose Model>Add Solids. It will work for all of the strips but one which seems to have a hidden geometry issue of some sort.
- Select each individual strip and choose Modify>Convert>Convert to NURBS. Each strip will convert to a group of NURBS surfaces which will now unfold.
- As for the one strip that won't Add together, you can convert them individually (Modify>Convert>Convert to NURBS as a group, then select each NURBS curve and choose Model>Create Surface from Curves). After that, they can be unfolded like the others.
Unfortunately they don't unfold into a beautiful connected pattern, but rather a scattered group of shapes. From experience unwrapping complicated crystal shapes involves a lot of manual alignment to get a foldable flat pattern.
You might have better luck with something like Rhino or Touchcad if you need to do a lot of these.
Kevin
-
There's an amazing amount of wasted space in that dialog box (yes, I know the second pane is actually the longer one). Generally there is a lot of wasted space in the Vectorworks interface. When you see what can fit into the Cinema 4D interface as an example, its clear Vectorworks needs an overhaul.
Kevin
-
Matt,
This is totally doable. The secret is that you need to set the viewport's background render setting to "hidden line" and the foreground render setting to "none" then update the viewport. When you edit the annotations the paint bucket option in the Polygon tool will create shapes as you expect. Hold down shift if you want to add to a shape. When you're done creating your shapes you can change the render settings for the viewport back to anything you want.
Cheers,
Kevin
-
Ha, thanks Jonathan. Much appreciated. Though I'd scanned all the preference tabs I assumed it would be under Display.
Cheers,
Kevin
-
Somehow this preference got toggled on so now when I switch sheet layers the zoom position jumps around. I've searched everywhere and can't seem to locate the preference option to change it back. Does anyone know where it is?
Thanks,
Kevin
-
Mike,
Thanks for the tip. It would be nice if back slash key toggled Screen and Layer plane modes as well as allowing for Automatic.
Kevin
-
In my opinion this is a bug. I often get caught by this.
(I also doesn't set textures by class when you choose "Make all attributes by class" from the pull down in the Attributes Palette.)
Kevin
-
Thanks Dave.
I had wondered if that were true but the implementation seems inconsistent. The custom texture I was having trouble with had Object Attribute Color, Metallic Reflectivity, Image Based Transparency and no Bump. Essentially I was creating a texture like a grating. It wouldn't allow for translations, rotations and scaling yet it needed to and should have.
Honestly these options should always be available since, as you say, it doesn't matter for some textures. Inadvertently blocking the options in situation where they may be necessary is not ideal.
Kevin
Multi-key shortcuts
in Wishlist - Feature and Content Requests
Posted
I ultimately think a combination of things are needed to clean up the interface. I can definitely see multi-key shortcuts being part of that. Other programs also allow an index of tools and commands to pop up by hitting a hot key and then the letter of the alphabet. Or favourite tools by right clicking or another hot key.
But I also think the tool options in the mode bar should pop up next to the tool, much like the heads up data display, so you can cycle through them using tab (should be the right click in my opinion). Direct, visual. Like the attached image. So you can quickly change the number of duplicates etc. just as you would anything else in the heads up display.
KM