Jump to content

P Retondo

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by P Retondo

  1. I've tried using the Custom Cabinet tool in v2020. It only draws a "Eurostyle" cabinet - can't draw a face frame, can't even draw a side scribe. Does that gibe with the experience of others? It can't draw a box with unequal drawers, you have to do separate "boxes," which is not how anyone making cabinets would fabricate something. Am I missing something, or is this truly another tool that VW or third party engineers laborered over that promises more usefulness than it delivers? Or is this just a "teaser," and a more capable version is available with "InteriorCAD?" Sorry to sound negative, but either the limitations are real, or the actual power of the tool is not evident. I think it's important for VW to get feedback - and to summarize mine, nice idea, but not anywhere near where it needs to be and I would much rather have seen fixes to the window, door or stairs tools. I'll still have to end up creating custom cabinets from scratch using generic 3d elements, so this feature cost VW money and does nothing for me. For what it's worth, though, the interface with highlighting of elements is very much in the right direction. PS, ungrouping the object results in a set of extrudes - brilliant! Maybe I can use it after all as a starting point. I like the fact that the face elements are slightly spaced, which allows them to be revealed in 3d with the shadow created.
  2. Pat's comment may come into play, but I also find that if there are too many joins to a wall, it cannot be dragged. I have to remove one or more joins, then it will work. It seems like the program could be improved so that it doesn't get stuck like this.
  3. @Helm If you read all of the thread, I think you will see that architects of all nations are talking about a few general things upon which we would all agree. 1 get rid of the bugs and obvious unintentional effects (such as window sills overlapping a non-existent bottom frame), 2 increase the number of parametric types to match the real world of common options (such as multiple sliding doors with interlocking stiles), and 3 make some common plan detail depictions more flexible and better aligned to practice. On top of that, I think many people would like 4 allow profiles to be defined by polylines, and 5 construct the PIOs out of extrudes so that when we "explode" them we can work easily with the parts. With all these improvements, we will still follow the methods of moving to precise detailing that you describe and that most of us practice.
  4. It's probably easier and better practice to flip the plan by flipping the sheet layer viewport, assuming the mirrored unit is identical. You can use flipped viewports to assemble a 3d model if that's needed.
  5. @mattryan I don’t think I was of much help! But good on you for sticking with it and figuring it out!
  6. @rDesign Thanks for all your work to track this down and provide at least moral support - and answering the question "am I mad?" At least I know folks agree how things work now and how they used to work. A little disappointed that an upgrade I paid for doesn't work as well as previous versions in this respect.
  7. @rDesign I'm not sure why you say 'working as designed' in v2020. No fillet is created, something that worked in previous versions. And as you point out, not fully working as designed in previous versions because of not extending the line or segment to the fillet! Try filleting to a polyline in 2020 and you will see what I am talking about.
  8. @line-weight Right, that's the way it's always worked as far as I know. Now we know it works up through 2018, not sure about 2019, but definitely not in 2020.
  9. Peter, this is in the context of plumbing and other single-line plans that can't be composed into a single polyline. What I want to get is this: With a polyline, what I get instead is this: This worked in v2017. In v2020 it works with lines, with polygons, but not with polylines. I think it's a bug.
  10. I am guessing that you are missing something. All the views where your objects are visible have a grid, and the ones where they are not visible do not. This is typical of the difference between a Top/Plan view and a Top or other orthogonal view; and when you haven't enabled "Display Screen Objects" those 2d objects will be present but invisible in those orthogonal 3d views. I'm pretty sure this is your problem, so double check everything.
  11. In previous versions we could join polylines with the fillet tool, which is really handy for pipelines & duct runs. Now, in v2020, I get the error "Parallel lines cannot be filleted or chamfered," even though the segments in question are at right angles. Works okay with lines, but if a polyline is involved, no go. Is this a bug someone else has noticed? Is anything being done about it? Am I mad?
  12. Here is where you check what view you are in: Here is where you enable "Display screen objects": And here is the dialog box for Unified View Options:
  13. Matt, it looks like you are moving from a Top/Plan view to a 3d "Top" view when you go to the design layer. Check your Unified View options, and enable "Display screen objects." I think you will then be able to see the phantom objects. Or, if you really want to be in Top/Plan view, make sure that mode is set correctly.
  14. @ScottLebsack Scott, it doesn't do that for my viewports. All 3d is visible gray with or without the "render transparent" option. VW help suggests that this option is for OpenGL transparency, but to tell the truth I don't see any difference if a gray layer has that option checked or not in an OpenGL viewport. That layer is transparent either way. Has no effect for 2d viewports for me. Maybe it makes a difference if you are using layer colors? I don't have time to check out every possibility, but it seems to me that for the purposes of graying out a background layer for MEP drawings, a simple checkbox should be possible that doesn't add unneeded complications due to hybrid symbols, etc.
  15. @ScottLebsack That does not help. The problem is 3d objects showing in gray. I tried some experiments, and I actually can't figure out what that render transparent option does. To clarify what I am seeing, this is my design layer (layer colors not enabled): This is what my design layer looks like JUST BY ENABLING LAYER COLORS in document preferences: Note that every fill went white, and every line went black. I can change those, but then EVERYTHING changes. And, in my sheet layer, even after enabling layer colors everything still looks like the first example, even after updating, and no overrides work. If I create a NEW Sheet Layer viewport, though, the layer colors show up and overrides will work. So that's a minor bug (existing sheet viewports not updating).
  16. Tony, this would require revamping my entire workflow. As I understand the concept, every object in a layer with layer colors enabled has to have the same colors. Not the way I work, it would require many different layers to work for me, and walls are not particularly amenable to that if we use different fills for different wall types. Walls have to be on the same layer to interact. But your comments do show there is a capability built into VW that could be exploited to make the requested feature available. BTW, what do you mean by a "viewport layer"? PS: this seems more like an AutoCAD workflow, where you have a different layer for everything, which ends up with an endless list of layers.
  17. @Tony Kostreski Thanks for the suggestion, Tony, but absolutely no joy. 2 comments: 1) when I enable layer colors in preferences, my design layer went all black & white (no, I do not have "Black & white only" checked). That alone is unworkable, because I do want to display different line colors and fills for different objects. With "use layer colors" checked, the color preferences are applied universally to every object, erasing all carefully-intended differentiation. And 2) my viewport on the sheet layer was unchanged! Trying to override layer color selections in the sheet layer viewport resulted in zero change. This is the exact opposite of how things should work. I should see all my selected colors in the design layer viewport, and be able to see things differently in the sheet layer viewport of the same objects. The only way I can get layer colors to display in a sheet layer viewport is to create a design layer viewport to duplicate the original layer, override the layer colors in that, and on the sheet layer viewport check "layer overrides" when editing layer properties. In sum, this obviously won't work for the desired purpose, which is: to have a design layer that shows a building plan as we would like it displayed for a plan viewport, and to use the same layer or layers grayed out as background for MEP or structural drawings. However, if we could enable colors for a Sheet Layer Viewport (only!!), and have it actually work for that viewport (per above, sheet layer viewport layer colorss do not override), we could get exactly where I want to be (image generated by the means described above in paragraph 2): Again, the problem is that in order to get this I have to check "Use layer colors" in document preferences, which overrides all of my fills universally. Unless you have a way around this. If not, it seems like the basic capabilities are there. All we need is to be able to override layer colors in an INDIVIDUAL SHEET LAYER VIEWPORT, without having that affect every object in the file.
  18. Gray background layers in Sheet layer viewports show the 3d content. That's not what we want! What we want is a grayed version of the background layer. How it is now: How we'd like it to be: See the difference? Some folks would also like to turn off all fills in the background, which would be even better.
  19. @willofmaine Yep, except for the fact that mapping to various PIO fields is starting to fail, InfoEditor is faster. I copy my old InfoEditor files to the PIO folder. I agree with all your points. And I've done this for your particular situation: instead of having both layers in the same viewport, have 2 viewports superimposed and turn off the ID tag class for the background. My longstanding suggestion for the stairs PIO - because we usually do this anyway - is let us generate a stairs from a set of 2d polygons as the parameter input. Posts crossing over: I just use the door or window opening option because it's convenient and parametric. No particularly compelling reason. On unique data derived from a PIO instance wrapped in a symbol, I can see the complexity of getting the code right, but it would be fantastic.
  20. @Pat Stanford I think that's a great overview, Pat. There used to be a third party utility called "Info Editor", which I have used for years and still use, even though some of the code is now out of date. It allows me to make global changes in PIOs and to almost any object (of a legacy type now) that contains data fields. Vectorworks really needs to bring that in as a tool, and update it so that parametric objects can be edited with a power similar to the use of symbols. The fact that symbols can contain record links that allow individual instances to be uniquely edited is another crossover feature. Seems like the ID tag and similar sorts of data features could be treated the same way with limited modification of the code, like you are suggesting.
  21. I always thought the main difference between a symbol and a PIO, besides that a symbol allows multiple instances to be edited at once as Pat says, is that a PIO is a parametric object - one that will automatically generate geometry based on user input. Different animals, it seems to me. And from my point of view, the greatest weakness is that the door and window PIOs, among others, do not actually do what designers want them to do and have longstanding faults that have never been fixed. I wonder, Will, what exactly are you trying to do with the Data Tag idea?
  22. @Pat Stanford My question was directed at both parties, and your answer conforms to my experience. But I took from the original post that isyme's office experienced automatic re-rendering of sheet layer viewports that was slowing down their work. I wondered why that was happening given the two modes of program behavior you describe, and maybe it has something to do with teamwork. He/she refers to "exporting" in the course of their work.
  23. To clarify, and rereading your post maybe your practice differs from mine - I frequently use a door PIO in "Opening" mode, which creates the opening in a wall, and place a coincident symbol composed of 3d objects in it. I've never used the opening PIO to convey data, but I suppose it could, depending on what you want to do.
  24. I don't know, maybe that's the case if you are using a single PIO instance to create multiple symbol instances. Pat? Have you thought about using the user-defined fields in the PIOs you use to create your openings? In the end, the best solution would be to have better PIOs so we don't have to resort to a workaround!
  25. Will, I take it that the user-defined data fields in window and door symbols do not do the job for you?


7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114


© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

  • Create New...