Jump to content

P Retondo

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by P Retondo

  1. It has been noted that when an "Oval" is trimmed, the resultant curves are polylines that don't exactly match the original oval's shape. Guessing that the "Oval" is generated from the equation for an ellipse with major and minor axes as parameters, this request is for an curve that would be a portion of an ellipse (=? oval), with control points at the end points and the 2 focii. The OIP could still display the lengths of the axes.
  2. Raymond, that's pretty interesting. Did anyone from NNA confirm that their "Oval" is generated from an ellipse equation? That would dispose of all the doubt, but like you say it's pragmatically of zero consequence. I like the idea of a separate object type for a segment of an ellipse. Its control points could be the 2 focii, plus the endpoints.
  3. Haha, not likely! Here's the wikipedia on an "oval," in case you are interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oval
  4. Zoom, perhaps math definitions are different in Europe, but in the US a cylinder is sometimes considered the special case of a cone with infinite height, and any slanting section through a cone (or cylinder) that is closed (reaches from one side to another) is an ellipse. An ellipse in (x,y) coordinates has a quadratic equation similar to but more complicated than a circle, which, again, is a special type of ellipse where the 2 focii coincide.
  5. Raymond, I initially had your thoughts, and I think we are 99% in agreement, except that there is an object type you don't mention germane to the question - the "Oval." Unlike an ellipse, the oval does not have a consensus mathematical definition, so I think it is telling that VW does not call their object an "Ellipse." What the VW "Oval" is I couldn't really say, and it may in mathematical definition be a bezier curve. So the fact that an Oval when trimmed becomes a series of polylines may not really represent a change of geometry. Donald, you originally raised this question, do you find that a line snapped to the oval becomes different in length when snapped to the trimmed curves? Zoomer, funny! I assume you are tongue in cheek. Seriously, though, are we really moving to a design world in which forms which have been commonplace since the Renaissance are now to be shoved aside by the dictates of CAD engineers? That goes so much beyond the current discussion on precision it belongs in a different thread, but it's a big question, who is leading the development of CAD - designers or coders or marketers? PS: I did the test. In my instance, I created a 3" line snapped to an oval. After trimming the oval, resulting in a polyline curve, and snapping the same line to that curve, it was shorter by 0.002248". This may have to do with the mathematical definition of a Bezier curve, which I don't have a completely firm grasp on despite having at least attempted to read Bezier's book. In my limited view, if you change the endpoint of a Bezier you may be unable to get the same shape regardless of how you tweak the Bezier parameters. Anyone know if this is true? Sorry about the edits changing this post, that's the way the thought process works for me: on the other hand, if the "Oval" as defined by VW is in fact mathematically an ellipse, which has an equation defining every point, then there is no excuse for a clipped portion of that curve being mathematically different from the unclipped shape.
  6. Raymond, respectfully disagree. Any set of points that can be defined mathematically can be represented equally well, in theory, by CAD. Apparently in this case NNA engineers have chosen not to write the code for a portion of any given ellipse. I have my doubts whether an obect of the VW type "oval" is a true ellipse, actually. From a pragmatic standpoint we are splitting hairs, no screen representation is exactly accurate, we are dealing with pixels and irrational numbers.
  7. rD, I tried this in v2016, and the angle was correct: 9.462 degrees.
  8. GWS, your signature says you're on 2013. I believe this issue might have been resolved in v2016.
  9. christo, you've not given us a very clear idea of what is in the file you are working with. It's a well-known shortcoming that the radius dimensioning tool often does not work in annotation space. If you have actual 2d arc elements on the design layer, you can get the dimensions there. I often have to re-draw an arc over the referenced objects when in annotation space to get a radial dimension to work. Based on limited testing, VW2016 seems to perform a lot better in this regard, maybe this has been fixed with the current version. Here's something that may be a bug: If you extrude a circle, the radial dimensioning tool can pick up the radius from an extrude. If you extrude a polyline that consists in part of arcs, the tool can pick up the radius from the 2d object but not from the extrude.
  10. +1 It may not be that difficult to do, if we are talking about extrudes, which are generated from a 2d shape in the first place. While we are at it, let's make it so that when an extrude is moved it's 2d primitive "moves" with it so that when editing the 2d shape, the vertices are aligned with the actual location of the 3d object. Why is that important? Say you have an extrude in a location, and you can, by snapping to points around it, create a new 2d object to modify the extrude. By doing a "cut" and "paste in place" into the extrude edit space, you would have your new geometry precisely and quickly. There are other workflows that would benefit greatly from these improvements. Combine the 2 improvements, and you could use the 2d editing tools directly on the shape of an extrude when in Top/Plan view.
  11. There are so many occasions (at a corner, for example), when I wish there were an option to have unequal trim left and right on a window or door. If this could be implemented, the best way would be to have an "unequal" check box, which would then bring up data input for the 4 situations (actually, 8 would be ideal - left, right, top, bottom) without cluttering the usual OIP.
  12. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing it wasn't so easy to undock palettes. An errant mouse click and drag, and it's 30 seconds or so to get the darn thing to re-dock and to resize it. The solution would be an option to lock them, preferably using the same command used to lock a drawing object.
  13. I'm not sure if everyone posting here realizes that hybrid 2d/3d objects, such as walls, were the founding innovation of VectorWorks, then MiniCAD. When Richard Diehl launched this software, AutoCAD was far and away the dominant market player (it still is). There were a few startups in the CAD world that tried to tackle 3d, and I believe that VW and Archicad are the only real survivors. Revit came much later and was absorbed by Autodesk. Back then, 2d drafting was the thing a CAD program HAD to do. The idea that an object could be both 2d and 3d held a lot of promise, and despite the glitches it's still a workhorse for us. If we want to convert something purely 3d to some kind of plan representation, getting the clip cube to work with fills and so that it can be viewported to a sheet is the best idea I've heard. I don't see any huge engineering hurdle there. But let's refine, not dismantle, the Top/Plan view.
  14. I use the eyedropper tool exactly as Josh does, and I can verify Josh and VG's complaint. Jonathan, I'm 99% sure this is not due to inadvertently hitting the "U" key, but as I haven't been able to pin down exactly when this problem occurs, I haven't filed a bug report. This behavior goes back at least to v2013. To clarify, with the eyedropper tool in "pick up attributes mode," I find that sometimes (not always) the default mode shifts to "put down attributes". I notice this when I ctrl-click on an object, expecting its attributes to be modified, and when that doesn't occur I notice that the default mode has switched from "pick up" to "put down." As I have used the "ctrl" hot key in such an instance, I have picked up attributes from the object, not put them down. Again, Jim, if you're listening, this is the kind of boring, everyday problem we wish NNA would prioritize solving above glitzy new features. I attribute such problems to sloppy code.
  15. I submitted a bug for this behavior, maybe a couple of years ago. At least I'm pretty sure I did, so many bug submits I can't remember them all. Anyway, never fixed, so just hit the "X" key to activate the selection tool before trying to activate the rotate tool, it's a habit by now. Jim, whenever we say we would like VW to work with fewer glitches as a priority over new features, this is the kind of thing we are talking about.
  16. Grant, I was unable to replicate this in v2015 or v2016. Something else must be going on with your file. When I group objects in an inactive layer, they are all reassigned to the active layer in a group also on the active layer.
  17. +1 on the idea of scale-aware text and symbols for things like grid bubbles
  18. MH, I don't think you are missing anything, I have the same problem. If someone has a solution I'd sure like to know what it is. Same problem often with arcs.
  19. It would improve VW functionality if we could do these kinds of operations on all classes in a group by clicking on the group prefix, without necessarily having to expand the group and selecting each class individually.
  20. MH, first check to see if in fact you have made everything "None." Select a class in the navigation window, delete it - and if it asks to reassign objects, there are objects in that class. They could be in a symbol or a group. The procedure to do what you want is actually simple. Open the class editing window, expand all groups of classes (right click on a triangle and select "expand all"), select all the classes you want to delete using "cntrl+click" to add to the group of selected classes, then hit the delete key. VW will ask if you want to reassign objects to another class. When selecting classes, don't select the "grouping" class name prefixes - if you do that, "delete" is grayed out as an option. Only select the final suffix of the class names.
  21. Thanks for the response - not sure if these initiatives would solve the problem of updating source files, since if the workflow at hand is change source -> save source -> update target -> output .pdf, one would have to wait for the update to take place before being able to correct the sheet. On the other hand, if, as you implied in your post regarding optimizing data transfers to and from the cloud, the transfer were isolated to the actual objects changed as opposed to re-writing the entire file, then we would be talking about something! BTW, this problem is currently an impediment to structuring our files for a project. As you know, file bloat can occur when rendered viewports are maintained, and we want to retain them because of render times. The update issue makes it inefficient to break the project into multiple files, so the tendency is to minimize that, leading to said file size bloat.
  22. Jim, thanks, it's gratifying to hear that NNA are taking a pragmatic approach. Needless to say, "do your work from anywhere" doesn't work unless there is huge bandwidth everywhere. Speaking of incremental saves, is there any way that algorithm could be applied to updating a linked file? In v2015, at least, it takes up to ten times as long for a large "source" file to update compared to actually saving the same file to my hard drive. Seems like if incremental saves and updates are a goal, the first place to apply the idea would be to updating a "target" file when a "source file" is edited. My 534MB design file (source) takes 10-15 seconds to save after changes. Updating the same source file in my target file takes 1 minute 28 seconds, to incorporate the exact same changes. That's approximately a 10:1 penalty for breaking a project into multiple files, which can be pretty time-consuming at the redmarks phase. I spend more time waiting for updates than making actual corrections to the sheets. (not that 10-15 seconds per save is in itself acceptable - should be a few seconds at most to save after adding a rectangle, don't you think?) PS: 3.47 GHz Xeon processor, 64 bit OS, solid state hard drive
  23. My general experience with cloud-based computing is that it is not suitable to CAD because file sizes are so large the bandwith, especially for uploads, would make use unwieldy. My typical project can be upwards of 750MB, and with incremental saves every 100 operations, and frequent updates of linked files in a multi-file project - nightmare over the web. Bad enough having to wait over 90 seconds for a linked file to update in my sheets file just from my own desktop SSD. That alone makes it a non-starter for me, not even going to problems with fonts and other customizations. So the only use I could see is temporary archiving for use in another location or for basically transferring files, which I can do with Dropbox already. If NNA is thinking of moving to an entirely cloud-based operation like Google is trying to do with its apps, count me out! It'll never work. Anyone else have a contrary experience or opinion?
  24. MHB, you are suffering from one or more bugs that change your Plane Mode preference. The one I experience constantly is that whenever I edit the clip object in a viewport, the preference toggles out of my preferred setting, "Screen Plane Only." I have set up a shortcut key to go to file preferences, and every time I edit a clip I have to go in and reset the preference. This is VW2015, I haven't done enough work with 2016 to know if that particular bug has been fixed. NNA, please track down these bugs and fix them! And BTW, I'm experiencing upgrade fatigue. I'd much rather have my yearly subscription in the form of service packs to add features - if the file format can be held constant, with a new executable issued, say, every 3 years. It's too much of a pain to translate all my resources, past projects from which I reuse elements, etc.
  25. Thanks, Nic, I think it might be v2015 vs v2016. If it's a setting, I've looked at them and can't find any answers. I also get the annoying rectangle around the dimension text, which I see you don't have. I've resisted going to 2016 despite owning the licenses because of all the reported instabilities. Jim, if you're monitoring, first priorities for me in future updates and development: reliability, speed. Everything else tends to be bells and whistles if those are not solid.
  • Create New...