Jump to content

Amorphous - Julian

Member
  • Posts

    405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

300 Spectacular

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Architect
  • Location
    Sydney

Recent Profile Visitors

2,603 profile views
  1. @KIT KOLLMEYER as I am now considering moving my office from VW (due to their new licensing model, which I believe spells the end of this software), I am wanting to find out what others were able to sell it for... if you don't mind sharing.
  2. I’d like to reiterate a point I made in another post, too…. In the past, transferred perpetual licenses were upgradable. That is why I subsequently invested in several perpetual licences- they had resell value. In a single stroke, Vectorworks devalued all perpetual licences- by removing the VSS subscription rights of transferred perpetual licenses. As someone who forked out money to support this software... of course, I am not happy to see my investment in devalued that way.... but what can I do. The decision was unilateral. I was of course quite upset that my investment was reduced to nothing overnight. I’m not talking about one or two licences…. Original thread as follows
  3. In the past, transferred perpetual licenses were upgradable. That is why I subsequently invested in several perpetual licences- they had resell value. In a single stroke, Vectorworks devalued all perpetual licences- by removing the VSS subscription rights of transferred perpetual licenses. As someone who forked out money to support this software... of course, I am not happy to see my investment in devalued that way.... but what can I do. The decision was unilateral.
  4. @Matt Panzer i think we should consider both scenarios of ‘drawing for Archiecture’ (ie 1:100 scale) and ‘drawing for interiors’ (ie 1:20 scale) what you said is true for the former but not the latter. For the latter we just want the outermost sectioned object line thickened (be it wall, windows, joinery, fitment). So I think the option of what to thicken should be given to the user and not predetermined by default.
  5. In both Enccape and Lumion, this is a simple feature called 'two-point-perspective'. It is the basis to make renders look good. Everyone who works at my office is bewildered why Vectorworks doesn't have this.
  6. In encape, and lumion, this function is called 'Two-Point perspective', and there is button for that. And it doesn't change the height you look from or to
  7. Thank you @Matt Panzer for your detailed explanation on the difficulty of implementation. Coming to rethink what I was asking in the original post - I guess there are three components to my suggestion: (1) Firstly, it is to reduce the number of wall styles required, just to get the model/ drawings looking right, with real world construction sense (2) Secondly, it is to easily change the finishes of a room / exterior finishes of a building (as a design tool) (3) Thirdly, it is to easily use Data Tag to tag the finishes of each vertical surface in elevation view So, after considering your points, I can see how it would be technically different to implement the first point so I no longer insist on it. On the other hand, I would like to make a suggestion that should be highly implementable (for engineers) related to my the second point: To allow component 'classes' to be changed within 'Object Info Palette' for un-styled walls. So, if we need to quickly test different finishes options for a space, we just 'unstyle' a few walls within a room, and within the OIP change the finishes of the outermost component other material classes, and can instantly see what it looks like. Do you think this can be done? Following this logic, it would also be great if certain wall style would only carry the 'construction' of a wall, instead of specific materials. In this case the 'finishes class' selected in the OIP can override any finishes of the wall style itself. That way, even if we switch the 'construction' of a wall to dry wall style (or whatever else), the finishes already selected won't change along with it. The third point (finishes tag for outermost layer), I don't know whether its possible @Matt Panzer, but since we define our material by class in our office, I would love a data tag to only call out the 'class name' of the outermost component of a wall. And I second @Matt Overton point on demarcation. Core / shell and fitout are usually different contractors. If we were to only be involved with 'interior fitout' for a certain project, and we are given an IFC model. What would be the best practice to put our finishes thicknesses over the core walls provided to use in the IFC? If finihses are to be modelled as a 'wall' over the IFC core wall, how do we make these finishes automatically pick up the openings of the core walls?
  8. I'm bumping this suggestion up as we in our office still build composite walls as separate layers of walls over each other... it is quite ridiculous a workaround.
  9. What we do as a workaround is to have multiple sheets set up and move the worksheet up on each page to show a different part of the worksheet Another ridiculous workaround haha
  10. Seeking 3years+ drafter/modellers to support on various projects. We are working on a number of projects including high-end residential, school, and F&B. You will work into our teamwork environment, and the work is to be done remotely. Interested candidates please send your folio and expected hourly rate to hr@amorphous.com
  11. Oh I missed that... I thought Catalina was sufficient. So if we press 'update' while in the redshift mode, does it just give us a renderworks render @zoomer?
×
×
  • Create New...