P Retondo

The only way to get your rails and stiles to have the correct grain orientation is to ungroup the parametric cabinet object, which then becomes a set of extrudes you can map individually. In your case, you will have to do that and work with the extrudes if you want edge banding for your case panels.

Or, it’s the tip of a strategy to sell VW to homeowners and other amateurs who, thanks to.HGTV and other fantasy purveyors, think they can be architects. The sophisticated consumer will go on Houzz and Pinterest to steal your ideas, which they call “research.” Then they call you in for a free consultation under the guise of pretending to be interested in hiring you, and proceed to creating a botched up mess. They will even tell you how brilliant they are for leveraging their access to talent.

Apparently this request was posted to two different threads. I’ll add the comment here that I posted on the other thread: the author of the .vwx file is the only appropriate person to ask for a . dwg conversion. Otherwise, this is probably a violation of copyright.

Gabriella, this kind of request triggers copyright concerns. If you have legitimately obtained the .vwx file, its author can convert it to .dwg for you.

Play around with the “send to surface” command. Your second model looks like it didn’t properly send the retaining edge to surface.

Steve, are you an architect? And if so, can you tell us how Rhino works out in reality? Always liked Rhino, but it seemed ill-suited to the profession when it comes to creating construction documents. VW is getting pricey, but, heck, a new set of code books costs me $1,500 every 3 years.

I’ve experienced this kind of “corrupt object” problem with Enscape. So far, it’s all been about quirky differences between the two applications. The difference with Escape is that you can get Tech Support, because you’re paying for the program. Vectorworks needs to make up its mind, settle on one of these enhanced visualization softwares to work with, and make the interaction more seamless. Maxon, Enscape, Twinmotion, one of them. Or better yet, all of them!

Dimes to dollars this has to do with security software blocking the online authentication function. I understand there are cheaters. There are also honest and sincere users, once known as customers, whose use of what they are paying for is often inhibited by the corporation’s zeal to block cheaters. It’s an MBA thing. It has come up for me whenever I’m using my laptop away from the office. Whatever happened to the dongle? That was a semi-analog solution. The frustration and actual damage done by not being able to get some work done on a long flight before a meeting is a real problem for all of us.

Hi Jeff, always respect your point of view! I used to build models, in fact that was one of my first jobs in architecture. They tend, though, to create a design inertia. It's time-consuming to modify them, and at a certain point fees do matter. Plus, when you are trying to visualize how some complicated trim details intersect at certain angles, you just can't build models to get at it! And, using VW instead of some more facile but not 2d/3d integrated software choices, you can cut sections and get at accurate dimensional analysis. Here's a model - it tries to get at presenting interior and exterior at one go. Now, I can walk into and around the building in realtime: Domes.pdf

@MaWi Thanks for the update on the demise of NNA, long live Vectorworks, Inc. I've been a user since MiniCAD v2. I've been involved in over $100M constructed projects, several times that if you count projects that never got built. I remain a hands-on CAD user. I therefore fancy I have an informed perspective, and I don't share your view. There are several PIOs and other tools that have been crying out, for years, for corrections and more useful development. We who participate on this message board are well aware of what I'm talking about. Vectorworks needs to demonstrate that they are committed to their architecture and landscape base by making these long, long, overdue fixes. Until that starts to happen, be prepared for a steady stream of complaints. (Thanks for the multi-panel folding doors - could we get a fix for window sills, which are still broken after 10 or more years?) And stop blaming your users. We can't make your software more attractive to architects, or develop a better training and familiarization program. That's your job. We do our part by reporting bugs and trying to get the attention of engineers towards improvements, plus talking up the software when we have the chance. I've seen enough missed opportunities over the years that, if I were that person, I could cry.

I, for one, am grateful that Nemetschek continues to offer the "perpetual license/service select" option. To my mind it's a better option, and - look, if you can't afford that kind of cost for a business-essential capability, you should either charge more or throw in the towel. The real questions are, does NNA take the architectural market seriously? Or are they ceding it to Autodesk? Because it sometimes seems like they are giving up on 1) making new features that work and fixing ancient bugs and problems, and 2) engaging students and young professionals. It takes guts and persistence to make it in the world of software, and I'm wondering if NNA still has the ability to take risks and fight for it. I learned to draw by hand, free and drafting, and still start each project that way. But you just - flat out - just can't properly design complex objects in 3d, with understanding, without CAD. It has been a paradigm shift. And, with all due respect to accomplished and intelligent participants in this conversation, clients totally appreciate realtime CAD proficiency in response to their suggestions and questions during shared-screen meetings. "What if we move that window to the right and make it 12" taller," answered in seconds with semi-photorealistic real time representation.

Speaking of new features, does anyone else find the detail reference marker by styles a terrible step backwards and cumbersome compared to the way it used to be, where you could choose from common configurations in the OIP? Why?? Who do VW engineers consult about things like this? Clearly, not the broader architectural community.

I am looking to find a way to calculate the average slope of a parcel of land from a site model. I can display a slope analysis of my site model, which can be refined to a smaller and smaller set of rectangles with different colors according to a defined maximum slope parameter. This tells me that the software can evaluate the slope of a "facet" of the modeled landform, which would be the first step in calculating the average slope of the overall terrain. It seems possible, though I don't know how to get to it, that the software could output a table of the individual slopes of all the little rectangles, then sum and average them to get the average overall slope. Ultimately, this could become a finite element analysis tool if refined, but I'd be happy with a good approximation based on a, say, 1' x 1' element / grain size. Is there a query script or some kind of way to get Vectorworks to divulge what it knows about the shape?

It has struck me for years that breaking arcs and poly lines into line segments has a huge impact on file size and RAM usage. If engineers could focus on how to preserve more efficient objects, that could be the single most important key to better performance. Simplifying Pat’s analysis, a line segment has 2 points, an arc has 3 (end points and radius or center, or some vector equivalent ). Breaking an arc into just two line segments is already less efficient. Going with segmented polylines that eliminate redundant endpoints would be a small step in the right direction.