Jump to content

Kevin C

Member
  • Posts

    153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

89 Excellent

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Chartered Architectural Technologist
  • Homepage
    www.crawfordarchitectural.co.uk
  • Location
    United Kingdom

Contact Info

  • Skype
    k-crawford

Recent Profile Visitors

1,472 profile views
  1. Interesting that no-one from Vectorworks has entered this discussion. It is very telling that VW are always quick to blame the users saying that we are not using the program as it is intended and that items are 'working as designed' and that there is a very good reason why the software is now operating in the way it does. Can someone from VW please step up in and tell us why you have removed the 'none' marker setting ?? Also, I am not a programmer - why should I have to use a code to fix something which was not broken in the first place. This one is almost up there with the debacle of the Title Block borders a few years back. Or do we roll back to SP1 - as everyone knows that SP2 didn't actually work and that all bugs were meant to be sorted in SP3???
  2. I am using Flixo energy for linear thermal modelling (I am on version 7 - think it is now on v8.1)- not cheap, but extremely reliable & robust and most importantly I can calculate in accordance with EN ISO 10211:2007 and BR497. This is the website: https://www.flixo.com For my energy design I use Elmhurst DesignSAP (again a windows only product). I used to use NES Plan Assessor, but they were bought over by Elmhurst a few years ago and so I had to change.
  3. Pat Thanks for your views. As an office, we have been operating Macs as the primary hardware for at least 10 years. However within my standard setup, I have to run Parallels on the iMac due to the fact that Apple is not capable of running all the software that is used in normal day to day business - Energy design and thermal modelling software, something that Apple does not support. All of our business software is licence transferrable - so no cost or issue there. There are very few differences between Windows and Mac OS nowadays - with the vast majority of software completely interchangeable - if anything it is easier to operate on Windows than Mac - Networking / Microsoft Office all run 100% native on Windows and to be honest, a lot of Microsoft Office products have reduced functionality on a Mac, which has irked me for years. As far as hardware replacement is concerned, a 4 to 5 year cycle is acceptable in today's world - Mac's provide support for 5 years with their operating systems - free upgrades etc., but I can see this changing dramatically with the new apple business model that enforces a hardware change in a defined number of years due to the extremely limited user interventions that can be made. On the flip side, Windows has always been the hardware system that is fully user upgradeable and the downside of the OS used to be that Windows used to charge for OS upgrades, but Windows seems to be going the same way as Mac with free OS upgrades, as long as the hardware supports it. I have simply come to the business decision that Macs are simply no longer suitable for purpose in terms of adaptability and flexibility. They are fantastic pieces of hardware, however, that on its own does not justify keeping them. I also don't agree with your statement that Windows users don't upgrade - yes, that used to be the case, but that is no longer the norm. The main software that we use is Vectorworks and Microsoft Office - I am the only one who is certified to use the energy software. There are also very few differences nowadays between the two pieces of software a large proportion of work is done in the cloud. Thanks for your thoughts though on the Mac - that ship has sailed though, I am changing to Windows OS.
  4. Hi all. Been thinking about moving the office from iMac's to PC's for a while now and we have a couple of workstations that are way overdue for replacement and the price of iMac's have been going through the roof - for basically an average computer paired with a fantastic monitor. The spec I am currently looking at is as follows: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X Eight Core CPU (3.8GHz-4.7GHz/36MB CACHE/AM4) 64GB Corsair VENGEANCE DDR4 3000MHz (4 x 16GB) PNY QUADRO RTX A4000 16GB GDDR6, 6144 CUDA CORES - 4 x DP 512GB PCS PCIe M.2 SSD (2200 MB/R, 1500 MB/W) 1TB SEAGATE BARRACUDA SATA-III 3.5" HDD, 6GB/s, 7200RPM, 64MB CACHE Windows 11 Professional 64 Bit - inc. Single Licence Samsung LU32J590UQRXXU 32" 4K UHD Monitor The cost is coming in at under £2,800 (with 3 Year Collect & Return, 3 Year Parts, 3 Year labour - equivalent to AppleCare). The similar spec mac comes in at £4,029 excluding AppleCare, but the Apple Store normally throws it in at nil cost due to my business account. I am not confident that the new iMac due out later this year is going to be more affordable - and it will definitely be less upgradeable, so do I take the plunge now or wait?? Any thoughts??
  5. I think there are more issues than just the stability of SP2 for VW2022. As an office we had to roll back to SP1.1 as there are a fundamental errors in SP2. Most notably you cannot have multiple item attached to some walls. Symbols such sockets / furniture / switches etc... which you could previously snap to walls the face of walls create full wall breaks - irrespective of the setting, meaning ANY project cannot be used in SP2. Until this is resolved we as a business are basically stuck with SP1. We have been using this feature in VW for years - We cannot go back and change every single project and drawing. This was first notified to VW when SP2.0 came out for VW2022 - we are now on SP2.1 When we contacted VW - we were told, they were aware but not a priority and will be fixed in SP3. If this is not a priority - what is? When will SP3 be released.
  6. I was really pleased to see the wall component wrapping in this years release, unfortunately it still has some major implementation issues. The entire wrapping does not work with windows if you have a cill - funny enough, cills are a pretty basic element as the cill completely obscures the wall component wrap in plan view Again with cills, he wrapping does not extend down to include for a cill and leaves odd gaps at the jamb. Not sure if the same situation appears with door thresholds (haven't tried it yet). As an office, we have just started last week to use 2022 in anger, so it will be a while before we are at that level of detail for most projects. Had a look at the changes to stairs - it's a start, but VW is still miles off what the rest of the industry is able to do.
  7. Anyone noticed that the 'Trim' command seems to be broken or is it me??? When trying to trim lines in VW 2022, it doesn't seem to work. See attached screen recording. This has just started happening in VW 2022 - has never happened before. Screen Recording 2021-10-12 at 10.51.40.mov
  8. The offset for windows and doors has now been moved out of window and door settings and into the main OIP. See screenshot below. I think I see why VW has done this, but they have missed a trick. The 'Insertion relative to' tab should be relative to components and not just to 'jamb' Eg. Insertion Relative to "outside face of jamb" attached to 'Inside face of external leaf". This would allow all windows (and doors) to be set out to the correct detailing position irrespective of wall thicknesses etc.
  9. Daft laddie question. I see that there are some additional functions in worksheets - yeahhhh!!. However, there are still a great number of basic mathematical functions that are available in excel that we do not have (or I can't find them). One such situation is trying to get a worksheet to show the pitch of a stair. I can now get the rise and going (which is a good start), but nowhere can I get the pitch displayed. I wasn't that worried as it is a simple inverse tangent function as there is a simple formula: Going = X Rise = Y Pitch = tan-1(x/y) VW has a "Tan" function - but not an "Inverse Tan" function. Or am I missing something. Over 30 years since I did trig at school.
  10. I didn't keep it. Sorry. Every time with that file. It is definitely the 'geo-referencing tab that is causing the crash as the tab is not selectable unless there is site data in the file. This is going to be problematic moving forward as we have to issue co-ordinates for building and plot setting-out etc. and all site engineers require dwg files.
  11. Nina, I have submitted a bug report. The issue is with the 'geo-referencing' tab being selected. VW exports fine if the geo-reference is not enabled, but if it is selected - VW crashes (every time).
  12. Just exported the same file to 2021 and it exported to dwg perfectly - Bug methinks
  13. Anyone having any issues exporting to dwg in 2022? VW is crashing on a standard export profile.
  14. @Tom W. Hi. For items such as insulation / membranes etc. we have removed all of them from the main model as show them at the detail level only. It is just not worth the hassle. The problems with doing things on an annotation layer in a drawing sheet is that if anything changes whatsoever, you have to meticulously go through everything to make sure it still lines up. Too many possibilities for errors and just not worth the risk.
  15. Tom. Yes, that is correct - the roof face is the only item that is created by VW. One of the biggest disappointments in Vectorworks is it's inability to efficiently produce construction level detailing at a scale any higher than 1:50. I had a long discussion with VW support regarding this a couple of years ago, where it was said quite clearly that the software was not designed for that. Yes, in theory I could model an entire project, but the file would be so bloated that I don't think I would be able to run it. Silly things like membranes, insulation and other sundry items all have to be added in as annotations in the sheet layer, so any changes to the model whatsoever means that they all have to be re-drawn. Also, construction level detailing is on a scale of 1:5 or 1:10 (generally) and this is outwith the scope of VW, so why should we change from detailing in 2D (which VW is very quick and efficient at) to a LOD that it 100% reliant on the stability on a piece of software that is known throughout the industry as one of the most unstable architectural design tools in existence. Don't get me wrong, when VW works properly, it is great, but the amount of times on a daily basis I hear through from the drawing office the expletives of "that f*****g Vectorworks has crashed again" - and there are only three in the DO. Vectorworks does not understand anything of the following critical building components for me to trust it to construction level detailing: Windows: There are 2 cills in every window (independent of each other) and everyone knows that, but VW doesn't. There are lintels in every window (sometimes they are combined into a composite steel lintel), but sometimes they are not - again VW has no concept of that There is no way for VW to carry out daylight and opening calculations (it's either one or the other) Could go on - the list is endless Doors: There are industry standard door sizes (especially for external doors) The 'bodging' required to make doors fit into horizontal and vertical coursing means that schedules are generally useless without massive over-rides Roofs: Don't get me started on roofs I could go on, but my response to the original point was regarding the capability of VW to add flashings, valleys, roof detailing etc. to basically 'consent' level drawings - I.e no greater detail than 1:50). VW is currently not capable of creating a model that can be produced efficiently and to a LOD that is suitable for construction without massive 'annotation' overrides etc. I should add that the primary construction method used in our country for nearly all of residential and domestic projects is timber frame. We do have a six storey block of flats and that is an RC frame with SFS infills - again 1:50 level model only with 2D detailing. If I tried to do it any other way, my practice would just not survive as I would not be able to justify (in terms of fees) the time and manpower it would take to model the to LOD required. What I find frustrating in that regard is Please correct me if I am wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...