Jump to content

gester

Member
  • Posts

    667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gester

  1. well, i don't own a german version, and all i can see are the pictures of the drop down menu items, which are quite a few, compared with the int'l version and the described possible workflows, which extend the standard release. what i can also see is a certain logic in the structure of the development. i see, say, graphically prepared (and provided with radio buttons) 14 various window rabbet or 9 various sash options and i can say: the guys at computerworks understand the architecture business. so why not talk to them while preparing the next releases (or to other architecture savvy guys)? well, enough of this rant, i'm not the only one suggesting this. rob
  2. ok, fair enough. the vertical-only reason convinces me. rob
  3. yes, but why not make a 3/4" wall of a plywood? rob
  4. i've just begun to read the book 'inside vectorworks - integrierte planungsarbeit'. it's the 2010 edition by the 'cadforum architektur und gestaltung verlag', referring to vw2010 features in german version. the longer i was in the stuff, the more it amazed me. i've found things i haven't ever seen in the american version: new menu items (programmed by computerworks, the german distributor of the software), new possible workflows (f.i. generating static sections from the 3d model as an alternative to section viewports, binding design layers into a 3d model on a separate design layer making possible the creation of flat elevations on a design layer) a.s.o. and i am just now in the first third of the book. ok, the german version prices at eur4,000 + vat (fundamentals + architect), but i can't see the reason why software engineers inside one vendor don't exchange their ideas and maybe even code chunks. i am willing to pay more for improved functionality, and it's not the case it is not here. it simply gets developed elsewhere. rob
  5. aha, found this: other thread here let's see if it works. rob
  6. i've just tried to generate a door schedule from the 'va create schedule' menu command. the resulting customized door list worksheet doesn't have any 'summarize items with the same:' checkbox option as does the 'create report'. on the other hand 'create report' unfortunately has to be edited manually for the appropriate data fields that are automated in the door schedule. is there any possibility to have the summarized counts for the, say, id door labels in the 'create schedule' procedure? thx, rob
  7. thanks, vincent. i usually don't upgrade before any project is finished (and this will happen in a few days), but is good to know i can have it soon. rob
  8. are in vw preview images of the scheduled doors and windows possible (i mean as a schedule field)? i've searched for the possibility, as the pio openings' dialogs do provide the graphic representation... rob
  9. from what i remember a 3d scan of a building can open in any cad application capable of 3d modelling. a few years ago we managed to insert the exact 3d model from the surveyor into microstation v8, although we did't do bim at that time (around 2007-2008) and the main application was archicad 10. i can't remember the surveyor's file format, though, the project library is out of my reach. so the key is the complete 3d scan of the existing building. rob
  10. yesterday i've just added another pad for this, at the level i wanted my plate to be. the dimensions are exactly of the boundary, and in the side view the new (horizontal) pad looks like the tilted boundary, a bit above it on one side, a bit below it on the other side. the terrain updating flattened the area on the one side, but not everywhere. some volume has been added, but not exactly to the level of the bottom pad so i must examine the effects. but it confirms my assumption, thanks. now i have to play with the results. rob
  11. i myself never upgrade in the middle of the project, but the fact that even the service packs might not be foolproof makes me uneasy... rob
  12. oh, i see. my intention was to create a horizontal plate around the house (0.5 to 1.0 m), dipped in the existing terrain on the one side and sticking above terrain on the other side, with slope adjustments. in this way the effective terrain modification would be balanced in appearance (apart from the house volume, of course). the grader positions itself with the existing terrain slope (as does the boundary), and none of other modifiers (neither the pad nor the texture bed) would fill the excavation with anything. so i guess i'll have to model the volume by hand. rob
  13. factually, it was one of the best i've ever seen. that's why i wonder. i'd like to have the fill, too. how do i get it? YES ! that's the trick thanks rob
  14. what's the best way to fill the cut-out pad with new earth/gravel/etc. layers? do i have to model it by hand or is there an automatic function? rob update: i've just read about the site model in the design series guide and watched the great tamsin's site modelling webinar for the next time, but i can't figure out how to create the fill volume in my site model. in other words: i can't get the value in the 'fill volume' in the site model settings other than zero. can anybody help? thx
  15. it's beginning to make sense for me: i can't grab the boundary in an axo view when it's not displayed in 3d even if it's sent to the front (btw, the pad doesn't have a '3d view' option, so it's the boundary settings manipulation) which enables the cut-out in 3d, and the sending back shows the slopes representation in 2d (a 2d pic with my original boundary). anyway, the mere sending the boundary to the back didn't help with the triangles. the triangulation is really messing the whole thing up. i played a bit with further modifiers, as you suggested. the triangulation is imo simply too rough (a 3d pic with another boundary). but ok, i see the way to maybe make it work. thanks for your time rob
  16. tamsin, you're my hero the boundary 3d checkbox did the trick. and i can only see how much i must still learn btw, what are the triangles at the bottom of the building pad? rob
  17. i have to strip it from flesh a bit, it's over 32 mb now. what size can your mail server accept? thanks in advance rob
  18. here's the pad for the proposed model. the foundation walls fully visible. i am helpless... rob
  19. tamsin, i've just noticed the difference and tried that, too. nothing changes... rob
  20. and here are the boundary and pad settings... rob
  21. here's the settings for the model: the modifiers don't do anything. the cut-out volume is null, in spite of updates. rob
  22. yes, it's the 'proposed' 3d option. it doesn't seem different from the 'existing' one, though. but it's definitely 'proposed'. rob
  23. hi, i try to make a hole in my site model for my house. i've placed the modifiers (both the pad and the boundary) in the site-dtm-modifier class, but neither the existing nor the proposed 3d representation shows the cut-out volume. the cut'n fill displays only a boundary plane (the dark shape are the foundation walls). the wireframe view seems to be ok, though. what have i made wrong? rob update: i've noticed there's a grayed out, already checked checkbox: 'fill' in the 3d representation settings. is this the cause for such a display?
  24. i don't know the case, so i take this information for granted. so the biggest mining company in the world relied on sketchup produced documentation? and this is definitely true. rob
×
×
  • Create New...