Jump to content

P Retondo

Member
  • Content Count

    1,759
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by P Retondo

  1. I see what you mean. Have you tried putting the site model into a different file, and including it as a reference? I think you can then have different z = 0 elevations.
  2. Not sure if this works in both directions. If you move your model down using 3D move command, and increase the "Start contour offset" field in the General tab of the Site Model Settings dialog box, you can preserve the contour elevation labels.
  3. In my VW2020 site model, if I move the model vertically (using the Move 3D command), the contour labels do not change.
  4. P Retondo

    Graphics

    I can see you have Unified View turned on, and it looks like no layers are grayed (from what I can see of your layer list) and that you are in Top/Plan view with 2D Plan. So I would guess it is the graphic content of your symbols that needs to be made consistent.
  5. @Pat Stanford I always use the Adobe PDF printer. It has an architectural D sheet. My methods have not changed. The only difference is VW 2020 instead of VW 2017. To add to the weirdness, I have a bunch of sheets set up, all architectural D size. They all appear to flip over to that 8 1/2 x 11 tiled layout, but only the initial sheet shows the page breaks – the other ones look normal, but if I edit them, they all show multiple horizontal and vertical pages in the dialog box.
  6. Hi Wes, thanks, I always have "show page breaks" on. The problem is that when I close the program the sheets are like this: And when I open it the next morning it is like this: I have to go into the sheet printer setup to correct the problem every day. I believe this is a bug. I just wondered if anyone else experiences it, because I'm pretty tired of doing all the work required to file a bug report.
  7. Yesterday this sheet was a D size architectural sheet. Today, it is this: Is anyone else having this experience, or does anyone have any insight?
  8. Try this: edit the roof planes (select and < cmd+[ >), and drag the peaks of the each polygon beyond the junction. Then join, making sure you are using the second mode as shown in the screen grab above (Dual Object Connect Mode). If that does not work, just create a new roof from a rectangle, you should be fine.
  9. This has always been a problem. I just drop the door height by 1/8”, which buries that plane in the floor. We’ve been asking for major improvements to the tools for years, all falling on deaf ears as apparently marketing and MBAs control.
  10. Try joining the two roofs, using this tool in the modes shown:
  11. @superekon Please tell us what version of VW you are using. I have never experienced the problem you describe, for what that is worth. I'm not saying your problem isn't a real thing, just that it doesn't appear to be widespread, and there might be some explanation. If you want someone like Pat to help (Pat is probably one of the most knowledgeable persons on this forum, so it's worth it), you need to describe in detail what procedure you are doing to switch between layers, and other details about your situation.
  12. Wes, it must be too early, I don't understand what you are saying!
  13. Now this form of instability. First, the zoom tool (<C>) gets really slow. Then, when I draw a rectangle in Top/Plan view, the view switches to OpenGL. Then the program freezes. This has happened twice in the last 30 minutes. Never happened in 25 years of using Vectorworks and many, many conversions of files from previous versions. As a one off, I could understand. Combined with all the other glitches, I have to wonder how these things come to be.
  14. I actually cannot make this work. Manipulating component styles sometimes causes only the structural component to show. Now I have to show components in 1/4" scale plans, not very professional.
  15. Is this a Mac thing? I'm not seeing this on my PC.
  16. @Vlado I posted 6 items that need to be fixed. Some are more important than others. The key thing to realize is that surveyors mark their drawings with bearing notations that can be pi radians different from what the tool assumes, and that is very common. Often, the bearings are copied from an adjacent co-linear or parallel property line. Also, the assumption about arcs always is that they are tangent to the straight segments at either end. The notation "back tangent" is not going to be helpful to most users, and given the above assumption, is probably not something users need to be aware of. The tool should automatically draw arcs tangent. The red circle is helpful to know which end of the polyline is where the next segment starts (but automatically displaying the closing line is confusing). When editing a property line, however, the red circle is ambiguous, and the actual segment being edited needs to be distinguished. I'd reckon that if you can easily recreate this boundary, you will have solved most of the problems (bear in mind that like many surveys, this one does not close): Property line.pdf To understand the context of this survey, I have attached the document from which it was derived. We often have to work from this kind of information (the parcel is at 7027 Shirley Dr.). At times I've had to work from a metes and bounds description, which is a verbal recitation of the segments of a boundary. 48D7296.02.PDF
  17. I posted a request in the wish list forum to fix the tool. Apparently, there haven't been many complaints?!! I reckon that most people try to use it once, and just give up.
  18. @Pat Stanford Pat, I always appreciate your point of view and your selfless dedication to solving problems for those in the community who are having trouble with the software. You are truly an inspiration. Let me help you understand where I am coming from. I studied software engineering at UC Berkeley Mechanical Engineering, and we were relentlessly taught to look beyond the "cubicle" and to work to understand all the unanticipated ways in which code can go wrong, and either not work or not meet the need. Over in the Computer Science building next door, maybe the focus was less application-oriented! (Friendly dig, there.) We were taught to challenge the code, to do very time-consuming step-by-step debugging, and to prove that it worked in the real world of mechanical devices. The big bad story was how early radiation therapy software killed some patients because of an unanticipated lag between software output and sensor input. So when I try to use a tool like the property line tool, I am acutely aware that it is an example of code that was just quickly tossed off (maybe to check a box, as you say) - and besides being a pain in the rear to use, it has a real world impact on my productivity. You are absolutely right that it is not my job, or the job of any user, to try to fix this tool, not just because I pay to have NNA fix things like this, but because I just don't have the time. Got to make a living. So I end up being a complainer, but I hope I am an educated complainer in at least some fashion. Your post gets to the core of the problem. You mention engineers, users and marketers (don't get me started on the Haas School of Business and MBAs). What seems to be lacking is that essential management level that would address user satisfaction and the success of the software in its application environment. VW could shine, and it just makes me beyond sad that it doesn't happen.
  19. Surveyors produce typical boundary descriptions according to their methods - not according to the logic of the Vectorworks tool. Issue #1: bearing direction. Please include a button to quickly reverse the direction when the property line tool goes the wrong way Issue #2: redraw - often, VW fails to draw a line, although it later becomes apparent that it stored the info the first time, and we get an incorrect boundary Issue #3: data entry - once you click "Add" the segment should actually draw (see above) and the fields should automatically clear, signalling to the user what is next required. Issue #4: editing the PL - the segment we are editing should be highlighted, instead of making us guess which one it is Issue #5: panning - the shift key to allow panning while in the tool dialog box does not work, so if your line happens to go off screen you can't see what is going on Issue #6: arcs - this, as far as I can tell, is almost beyond redemption. Here's the result I get after entering 3 segments, the last one an arc, starting from the left and running counterclockwise: Here is what the property line looks like: Clearly, the program selected the incorrect bearing to start the arc, even though I entered the exact same bearing that was used to generate segment 2. Now, perhaps I can go back and change that bearing, and lord knows what will result. The tool is just unbearably difficult and unpredictable! By the way, you have to know to clear the previous bearing information BEFORE clicking on the arc button. And FYI, trying to correct a direction mistake by going back fails almost 100% of the time, and we have to start over. How about some real world testing to see if things work before calling it done! And we have been living with this tool for year after year with no improvements despite the many thousands of dollars sent to NNA. Think about optimizing the workflow, and making it easy to just enter a surveyor's information and end up with a property line. Should take no more than three minutes! Instead, I am fussing with this thing for hours.
  20. This is an old thread, I was looking for some guidance. But I have to say I completely disagree with everyone who thinks the property line tool is acceptable! The direction of next segment problem has been there since the beginning - a simple box to reverse is what is needed, and no one has apparently ever thought to upgrade the tool. Arcs are next to impossible. Enter the data, and you get a mishmash of multiple incorrect segments. The idea of the property line tool is to generate a geometrically correct polygon. I've used this tool for years, and eventually after multiple trials and errors usually get something reasonably correct - but it shouldn't be so difficult. Now I am faced with a boundary that has two arced lines, and it's just impossible.
  21. http://whistleralley.com/tangents/tangents.htm
  22. Modifying a window transom results in this nonsense with the wall:

 

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...