danielf

Video webcasts covering a range of topics which new users may find useful to help understand the following: MAIN WEBPAGE: http://www.cadcourse.com/vectorworks/v12architect/index.html Constraints/ Attributes/ http://www.cadcourse.com/vectorworks/v12architect/001_1.html CLASSES & LAYERS http://www.cadcourse.com/vectorworks/v12architect/001_2.html WALL STYLES & DRAWING http://www.cadcourse.com/vectorworks/v12architect/001_3.html DRAWING SET UP http://www.cadcourse.com/vectorworks/v12architect/002_0.html and others....

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/IT_tutorial_web_site/vectorworks/eamesChair_project/vectorworks_Eames_Chair_Project.htm The above is a very useful video series of VW 'drafting' classes provided by Loughborough University School of Art & Design....the british instructor, quite charming actually, is drawing an Eames chair, but i think the series provides some insight into the VW which i found useful and fun to watch!! You will find several other video series as well on the site. Here is another valuable link....lots of stuff, very user friendly VWs explanations. Look especially at the December archive. I think he's discussing VW 11, but the basics are pretty much the same. http://dmae-lcc.blogspot.com/ This is another really easy to understand explanation of VW..... http://www.qualum.com/generic/house.html cheers, daniel

Taken on whole i wouldn't dare compare SketchUP to the power or fullness and utility of any CAD/BIM purpose built design software; that would be just plain unreasonable. But what a joy it is to use...and what tremendous value it brings to the process of design --- from sketching, exploring, massing, inventing, creating, refining, and even realizing a very complete design model. And the visualization and presentation strengths it provides is priceless. Would i want to use it for the other half of my work...technical drawings....yikes!! Couldn't even imagine such a process....though i'm sure a brave and inspired soul could give it ago using Layout and even do surprising things with it. But that's not an arguement for or a promotion of even wanting to try. daniel

Thanks Islandmon....i'll take another look at it to see what's new!! cheers, daniel

I found a brilliant resource for getting some clear answers to our most basic first time questions which i wanted to share: http://www.vectorlab.info/index.php? title=Category:VectorWorks_Glossary if the link didn't copy/paste correctly, just go to 'www.vectorlab.info' and look for the glossary page. Viewports & layers are defined with great clarity!! whew... :-) The glossery is a little thin but hopefully advance users will take the time, if and when its availble, to fill in more glossery terms...especially classes would be nice!!

David-- I have nothing but appreciation for all that offered their input and my enthusiasm for seeking others input should not be seen as a demand or filled with any expectation for a quick reply or any reply at all. Please accept my apology if in same way I have commincated a demanding or impatient tone, as this would not be a true reflection of my enjoyment and pleasure in discussing all that I have thus far!! Daniel

Who knows with the expert guidance found here, 30 days may kick the can down the road far enough to illuminate the virtues of VW for me....that?s my plan anyhow since there really isn't an alternative. BTW, I did find the OpenGL settings box which allowed me to turn off textures which more approximates HDL as I would like. Looks like the can just took another bounce!! lol For me there is a great advantage to orbiting models with out texture info & in HLR so the focus can be just on volume composition and other core design issues which are useful before getting into the finishes. And I find that clients can be quite put off by seeing rendered textures which are too abstract for their untrained eyes and get very worried over the direction a design is taking if too much 'suggested' information is implied but not accurately illustrated....so HLR is a quick way to focus client meetings on form and not finish. It?s a great functionality to have. daniel

Open GL or CPU or however it works....both AutoCAD and SketchUp produce high quality HLR & shaded rendering visualization in fully orbiting free flowing zooming spinning panning perspective mode....I don't know how to design with out this functionality, frankly. So I?m just surprised that VWs doesn't at least match this capability. Its Open GL option, at least under my newbie control, is adequate but not much more. This is just my opinion, of course, not meant to start any debates, but rather seeking input from experienced user about if whether or not i'm missing something while learning about VW. Thanks for your comments.

Brudger wrote: 4. Poor user control of the interface and the inability to organize drawing data using a tree based structure. I do think the interface is a bit outdated and certainly not very inspiring to work with, but that's not a deal breaker if the tool set and functionality is convincing. But I do think VW can learn a bit from Autodesk 2009 & 2010 releases in terms of interface design & control....very slick and easy to use. The issue of tree structure is even more important, however. This is something that Revit does quite well and effortlessly. With Revit in very short order it became quite clear how to navigate from drawing to drawing, view to view, detail callout to its larger brethren drawing. With VW after many many hours and two tutorials I'm still trying to get my head around its organizational method with all its drawing types and VP combinations & class structure....and the navigation palette is okay, but the complexity of how drawings are parsed and viewed is not readily evident for a first time user. The net byproduct of this in the early days of learning is a sense that the entirety of the drawing file is very fragmented and so challenges me to feel as if I have a sense of the whole model in design....but I?m sure that?s just a phase of learning how to control the design in VW.

Brudger wrote: Where vectorworks is particularly strong is: 1. graphic presentation. It's easier to produce better looking drawings. 2. 2d design processes. Filled objects just have more integrety in representing what they are supposed to represent. These are two important points of interest for me. I'm a ways away from understanding how VW is easier in comparison to AutoCAD for producing better looking drawings given that AutoCAD provides no limits on the kinds of docs I need to create....there is total flexibility in creating sheets filled with all the needed content with great clarity and variety; maybe not the pretty fills, but honestly that is a very low priority in regards to technical CDs for permit & construction. Still for technical drawings I just haven't seen evidence that 'filled objects' have more integrity in representing what they are suppose to represent as you say, and certainly not in comparison to AutoCAD?s hatching and line work w/ proper line weights...frankly I haven't seen any evidence that VW is superior in that regard nor have I found this to be true for Revit either. Of course since I am not proficient in either BIM program I can only rely on the work of others to demonstrate these claims of ease of use & integrity of representation?.which why I am doing the research that I am as a matter of due diligence before changing software. For this I appreciate all the input from all the forum members here at VW?great group of folks willing to share?and this speaks well about the VW community and spirit.

Peter -- yep, we do pretty much the same thing in regards of getting copies made at a print shop & reimbursements for plots from the client....but there are plenty of times I run a set of test plots in-house both during the process of drawing creation and certainly for final review. I find it much easier to do corrections and red-lines on paper then on the screen as god knows we spend enough time staring into our monitors --seeing plots in full size & in print also helps to validate line weights and other concerns regarding clarity prior to sending them out to the print shop....so there is still a need for in-house plotting. Plus I find PDFs still blur the lines a bit, much better then before, but still not as sharp as DesignJet plots so I mostly print a full set and send that to the print shop for copies. PDFs work just fine during construction or for RFIs and client reviews stuff whenever needed....mostly because of the ease of emailing the drawings. And nothing beats a laser printer for quick in house drawing productions for a variety of tasks!! Thanks for your comments. cheers, daniel

Brudgers -- I wonder if VW feels a little threatened by that up start SketchUp new kid on the block and so decides its seen enough and shuts you down; after all being the King of Visualization is a mighty throne to look down from but perhaps a shaky leg shows up when the new kid on the block with it meager faces & edges is seen spinning circles more gracefully then a hummingbird!!

islandmon -- Gee gosh darn!! When I fly my AutoCAD Snoopy plane trying to escape the evil Red Barron in full HLR & perspective & transparency material mapping for glass & ground shadows all in full operation and then enter into an evasive death spiral at blazing speeds heading straight towards 00?-00? ?Z? I can at that last instance rudder up the nose with enough of a surprise leaving the Red Barron to face the Z mortal plane on his own. In other words, there?s enough operational CPU power for total freedom of movement. And SketchUp goes even further and does this with excellent material mapping to boot?.though full shadows does create some turbulence. Seems to me this isn?t just a neat trick for both those lesser equipped software?s modelers, but in fact a life saving maneuverability for design visualization. Well, I guess the programming gods giveth & taketh away depeneding on their underlying architecture. Thanks for the tip on, ?Groups, Classes, ParametricObjects, Hybrids, Symbols, and NURBS take on a whole new meaning and efficacy.? Seems there are many pieces to this puzzle. Cheers, daniel

Hey All, Unless I?m just a knucklehead it looks to me like VW doesn?t do Hidden line rendering while orbiting, zooming, or panning or Hidden line rendering in both perspective & orthographic projection with out a Camera VP [or crop might be the more correct terminolgy?]? And boy oh boy waiting for re-rendering after moving a hidden line rendered Design Layer view feels like being tripped from behind while free style dancing?a silly metaphor for a design flow interruption. The Open GL option does appear to offer some visual feedback with more fluidity, but not sure that?s really an adequate replacement. Placing the pivot point of the flyover tool in camera VP/crop perspective does give some control over the rotation, but it seems easy to lose the model on the edges of the VP ? stretching the VP/crop as wide as it can on the screen helps somewhat, but it still feels sort of like steering a donkey rather then a thoroughbred!! Does VW really lack this functionality? Or does it have its own way of providing smoothing flowing non-wire frame design feedback in a similar but unique way which is still beyond my learning curve?? Enquiring and demanding minds want to know?.. ;-) daniel

Oh, yes brudgers, i agree, and i will sip the 'kool aid' with proper expectations....no doubt the big gulping is most certainly a way a ways. BTW in your opinion where does VW excel and where does is faint relative to the other programs you noted? And likewise where are the others stong and weak...and expert well informed opinion is always welcomed.

Mar -- thank you so much for sending what you have...i've just opened it up and took a quick look at all the drawings....this should be a big help for me in regards to understanding how to structure a file, create a set of complimentary drawings, and how to work through the SLV, DLV and hopefully classes and layer structure. big help, much appreciated!! Now I must go and try to forensically deconstruct the file and learn what i can. Thanks agian!! :-) daniel

thanks Mar...i'll check it out and get back to you.

Thanks guys for your input. I appreciate the clarification. I guess I'm being very vigilant in my investigation of the software an picking apart what I see because its a lot of cash to throw down and I don't want to spend it THEN get into it and THEN discover its not the right design tool for me. And I can't think of a more important decision then selecting a design tool to make the designs with. Unfortunately there is not a lot of examples or demonstrations of the software which clearly show that the tool is purpose built for architectural work at ALL phases of the process. That may sound harsh with all the beautiful drawings that can be seen in the Gallery or the BIM discussions exampled and offered on the support site, but it seems to me that they are heavy on the schematic design and DD phases of the work and very short on the CD phase of the work, which of course is the end game before building starts. If this was my software and I wanted to promote it I would backwards engineer it starting from the end game requirements, then I would demonstrate that with examples of polished CDs at all scales just to end the conversation about the usefulness of the tool for designers. It seems the folks at VW are more impressed with showing pretty pictures then showing rigorous design docs. One example of a tool that belies a lack of backwards engineering the auto dimension tool?.it doesn?t even dimension from face of stud or structure which is the only viable way CDs are dimensioned?.but I cover that in another post of mine. I like the feel of the program and am enjoying the learning process, but I suppose I start with the attitude of ?prove it to me? before I swallow the pill. It?s just too important of a decision to fall for the idea of BIM before seeing the execution of it in a satisfactory way. Otherwise you buy the program with hopes and dreams but end up only using it in a limited way due to the complexity or unpredictability of its higher powers. I did that with ADT3.3. Thank god it had AutoCAD built in or it would have been a total waste of money for me. Cheers, daniel

Peter -- Thank you so much for generously posting some of your drawings...I really appreciate it!! They are nice drawings. In my office I use a HP Design Jet 430 plotter for ArchD size sheets or a Laser Printer for 11x17 or smaller prints, both of which provides for shades of grey but no color -- so all the color tones I've seen in all the examples of VW drawings seem to me to be mostly useful for on-screen display purposes. Do you make plots with color?? Or do the colors render in shades of grey for B/W plots & prints? I love the notion of VWs graphic flexibility as there is a full range of expression that is needed through out the design & documentation process. And I like the notion of having the ability to use color/tone effectively to enhance the legibility of CD docs for the primary purpose of assisting the GC in understanding the design. After all that is the priority for me when generating technical docs?clarity in communication to the builder. At the moment I?ve worked through the VWF tutorial and most of the VWA tutorial and am still struggling with holding together in my mind the paradigm & methodology that is VW...especially when it comes to Class vs. Layer visibility settings and overrides and in conjunction with Sheet & Design Viewports. Whew, flexibility is expensive in terms of brain cells!!! My simple mind is comfortable with the AutoCAD Modelspace + Paperspace relationship with Layer associated line type, line weight, screen color and visibility or even printability. In AutoCAD the 3D model [or the 2D drawings representing all the views of the model] is a cohesive whole living in model space where the Z axis functions. Paperspace is simply a place to open windows into that world with viewports which are scaled as needed and laid out on the sheet in any arraignment that is needed with as many scales as needed per viewport and then noted & dimensioned to create the CDs. AutoCAD Modelspace is not a world subdivided like VW Design Layer space containers are, except that when it?s useful to place parts of a model [or 2D drawings] on separate layers for view control of parts of the model or parts of the 2D drawings for print control or work flow proposes. This is the same for Paperspace, . I?m sure that?s part and parcel what Layers are designed for in VW, but for some reasons it?s not translating in my brain just yet. The word Class seems to mean much more then Line type, weight, visibility & fills when joined with Sheet & Design Layer & Viewports [sheet or Design]. So not having that well in hand I don?t think I?m quite ready to design anything in VW as I don?t feel I have enough grasp or control on how to operate the ship as it were!! Overall as I explore VW my number one criteria for evaluating its value for me is whether or not VW has the ability to increase my productivity/efficiency with out diminishing the quality of what I already do with my current AutoCAD + SketchUp work flow?.which is actually a very easy and simple process; and one where both software do exactly what I want them to do with no surprises, what I draw is precisely what I see, so I don?t have to develop work-arounds or software skills that are needed to overcome hiccups in the programs. BUT they lack automated Scheduling, and any type of simple design changes can cause global reworking of drawings?.yuck?. which is why the BIM idea is so seductive to me. So here I am making an honest effort to evaluate VW. I did the same with Revit but found it unnatural and graphically unappealing, though I like the interface of 2010 and its structure is actually quite simple and requires little effort to understand how sheets & View & levels are generated and managed. But the ?sketch? approach to 3D modeling & the Massing Space just didn?t feel right to me, or the notion of detailing in discrete spots as if that?s a best way to work seemed to detached from the model where distant reference points are often needed to work through a detail with confidence. Of course I hardly know the program so these may be none issues but it seemed like a big walk to get there so it sort of turned me off. Whew?okay I?ll let your ?ear? rest as I?ve said enough. Thanks for your input and offerings!! daniel www.danielfactor.com [you can see the type of work i do there]

Mar -- I checked out the Toulouse elevation...not sure thats what i had in mind when i said i was looking for a full finished set of CDs. Making pretty pictures and making technical drawings for permit sets are two different things. And i only wonder how much my printing cost will rise if I use this 'pretty picture' approach to CD docs with all the fills and gradients is see in all the VW exmaples?? Is that really how folks produce permit/construction/bid sets who use VW?? Is this really the methodology VW is designed for? How about normal black line drawings which are clear and consise for all aspects of any normal set of CDs?? daniel

Thanks guys, i'll chase down those leads!! :-)

Thanks Vincent for your comments. Just to be clear the drawing is a screen capture from a Vectorworks video, so I?m not sure what the components are for each wall and so it?s hard to access how I would draw them. The VW graphics [hatching/fills] used are still unfamilair to me, but even despite that i can clearly see the two walls are rendered differently even if the one was flipped. I expect a drawing to leave no ambiguity as to what it its representing and also be proof of its being a sound bit of construction. Which leads me to the reason I posted this example: The video doesn't demonstrate clarity in what it is trying to represent -- which leaves me wondering if this is a byproduct of VWs 'automated 'Model based drawings or just poor execution of the tools VW has?? In the final analysis the tools we use must not interfere with the work responsibilities we have...and creating clear drawings is paramount in the work we do.

Thanks for the info....worked perfectly!!

Hey all -- Can you adjust the gap bewteen the callout text and the leader line? See pic attached. And can you align a column of callouts easily? Perhaps the smart cursor guides will help with this. thanks, daniel

Thanks for the reply. Looking at the two walls at first it does appear that flipping the one you mentioned would move them closer to resembling each other...but looking more closely at them you can see the walls are not identical, at least not in how these two are represented....there are difference in the spacing of the core materials. If the two walls are supposed to be identical then I could only imagine what a GC would think if he had to interpret the difference shown here....!! I'm of the school that the architect?s job is to eliminate the potential for 'interpretation' by the builder so that they can build what is designed in the most efficient way. As I continue to evaluate the software I keep in the forefront the need to produce clear & precise technical drawings; and so when I see things like this I am still wondering if the BIM based approach doesn?t deliver too many road blocks that require effort and work around to achieve the goal. Thanks for listening. :-) daniel