Jump to content

P Retondo

Member
  • Content Count

    1,797
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by P Retondo

  1. Looks to me like there is only 2M RAM available at the time of crash (2301K). If so, I think Islandmon is right. How much actual RAM is on this computer? It looks like you're using 4GB memory with what is running (4394 MB).
  2. Robert, I looked at the ungrouped cabinet, and sure enough, as you say and as revit kept insisting, there are multiple extrudes based on two identical rectangular polygons. I'm left to wonder why in the world a rectangular prism would be constructed from a multiple extrude. Revit, you'll have to pardon me for assuming that an object such as a piece of a cabinet face frame, most logically constructed from an extrude, would actually be an extrude. Multiple extrudes are commonly used to create objects such as this: BTW, for my purposes and I think this would be true for others, a cabinet face frame would be best constructed by extruding a polygon that models the entire frame, e.g.: The joints between pieces are commonly not shown on interior elevations, and if they are, are best depicted by very light, secondary lines. Having the heavy joint lines show up in elevations based on a section viewports makes the drawings look clumsy and unprofessional, so I always have to trace to get usable cabinet elevations (for this among other reasons). Although . . . if we could suppress the display of selected 3d object edges, and the joints did not then show in elevation in hidden line view, we could then be more sophisticated in how textures are applied. In particular, we could have the PIOs align textures in such a way that wood grain could be properly oriented. That would be the ultimate kind of 3d object. The same logic applies to door frames, jambs, etc.
  3. revit, again, what you are calling "multiple extrudes" are probably solid additions or solid subtractions. When you ungroup a PIO, it becomes a group of solids (or 2d objects, if you are ungrouping it in Top/Plan view). These are "ordinary" objects that can be edited like any other object of their type. The nature of the objects has been determined by the engineer that designed the PIO. Petri, I don't share your feelings about extrudes. To me they are the most fundamental 3d object, easily edited, and rely on the hybrid 2d/3d interface that I think is one of VW's greatest strengths. So I would prefer all PIO objects to be designed as extrudes wherever possible, and I don't see the point of having a set of window muntins or a joist, for example, be anything else. A window sill with "horns" - yes, a solid subtraction would be the way to go. Never a mesh object or a generic 3d solid!
  4. Petri is absolutely right about the need to ungroup ("explode" is an AutoCAD word!) PIOs to customize instances in certain situations. It would be good if NNA engineers recognized the usefulness of this process, and made components of PIOs easily editable. For myself, I find that extrudes and boolean combinations of extrudes are the easiest objects to edit in most situations, but for some reason some PIOs ungroup into generic solids that are difficult to edit. A good example is the creation of specially-shaped windows. VW could not possibly anticipate all the needs of designers with respect to the shape and configuration of window and door parts. My practice would be to use the PIO to get something close, then convert to a symbol, then ungroup the PIO in the symbol and edit the part. Would be, that is, if the parts of the window were logically constructed of easily modifiable extrudes. Another example is the current incarnation of the cabinet PIO. It is limited to two doors per cabinet, which makes life difficult when extra lines appear in interior elevations, as a result of having to cobble together a line of cabinets from the PIO. Being able to ungroup the cabinet and then tweak its objects would be the best way to deal with the tool's current limitations. PS, revit, "multiple extrude" is a specific object that creates a tapered extrude. I think you meant to say something else.
  5. You are correct, this is the behavior of 2d reshape, and in fact it is true of all "select and drag" operations. Some have asked that with objects selected VW ignore other objects in the completion of certain operations, perhaps with the use of a constraint key. I think this is a great suggestion, but in the meantime isolating your objects using groups according to Islandmon's suggestion is the way to go.
  6. bc, in my experience copy and paste-in-place is to object coordinates, regardless of the view set in a layer and also regardless of whether the source layer has a z value. If you use layer z values, that can affect where the object appears in a layer link (its height is always augmented by the z value). Quite apart from all your questions, I just ran across a weird issue with Align Layer Views. I was editing an extrude in a symbol, and inadvertantly hit my key combination for Align Layer Views. After that event, all my OpenGL perspective views were white - in wireframe rendering they looked correct. I was able to get my perspectives back by going into a plan view of a layer and re-executing Align Layers.
  7. Dear former, I think it would be helpful to know what it is that you find you can't do with the VW tools provided,especially because right now NNA is working on revamping the window and door PIOs.
  8. DWorks, do you mean you'd like to be able to rotate an associative hatch? If so, yes, great companion idea. And Katie, I agree, adjusting associative hatches, including scaling, would fit in perfectly with the Attribute Mapping tool.
  9. WinDoor is less than $200, or was when I purchased it recently. Even it has problems, but doing your own PIOs would only be worth it in the context of a very large firm that is able to devote resources every year to updating them and keeping them functioning both backwards for legacy files and forward with new versions of VW. What is it that you can't do with VW out-of-the-box?
  10. Following up on the discussion in another thread, it would be great to be able to adjust the origin of an associative hatch on an instance-by-instance basis without editing the actual hatch itself. In addition to numerical values which could be displayed in the OIP, there could be a tool whereby the hatch, once applied, could be dragged to the desired location. On top of that, I think it is high time we think about a more powerful interface for creating and editing hatches. The hatch tool should be able to take a user drawing and make it into a hatch. Placing and editing all those little line segments in that inscrutable interface seems to be the sort of thing modern CAD was designed to make obsolete!
  11. My wish: you should be able to move the origin of an associative hatch by means of a tool that allows dragging the hatch pattern after it is placed.
  12. My experience may not apply to you, but I recently had a problem with VW freezing every 5 to 10 minutes. The crash was so bad I had to restart my computer each time. I thought I had a corrupt file, but unlike you I was able to reference the file into another. In the end, I reinstalled VW and the problem went away. You may in fact have a corrupt file, but reinstallation only takes a few minutes.
  13. Kyle, check out this discussion of the problem: Hatch technique The second post in this thread shows a method for accurately placing a non-associative hatch.
  14. Jenni, I'm trying to figure out why you are asking this. I think it's because you are zooming in to look at two 1 mil lines in your 1:200 layer, and they look fat and run together. If this is the case, I think you are trying to show too much detail for a drawing at this scale. If you want to excerpt this drawing, and show a portion of it at a larger scale, use the viewport method, even without scaling lineweights. You can show a portion of your drawing at 1/4" scale and the lines will still print at 1 mil, but will appear to be a lot thinner relative to the things you are drawing. Remember that in VW lineweight is for the printer's benefit. The line thickness is not like an object's thickness, and is not interpreted relative to the size of "real" objects. As Pat points out, anything smaller than 2 mil won't print consistently on even the finest printers.
  15. Erich, you're not really missing anything. It takes a trick to accomplish. (BTW, you didn't say but I assume you are using v12.5.n.) You can choose a custom door from the available options, which include some doors with various glazing types ("Parts/Leaf/Custom" in the door settings dialog). Or you can create a panel door, and in "View/Special Classes/Int. panel AND Ext. panel," assign a glazing class. Custom doors can't be edited in the same way as regular doors, not sure why.
  16. P Retondo

    Solids

    clb, you can rotate any object about any point using the Rotate tool. Click on any point to define the center of rotation, click again to define the axis, click a third time to define the orientation to which you want the axis rotated. It couldn't be simpler or more straightforward, and is one example of a tool that is much more intuitive than the AutoCAD version. Alternatively, before executing the 3rd click you can enter an angle in the data box to constrain the rotation to a specific value.
  17. Wezel, assigning a special class to background objects in Section VPs works for me. The one problem I've encountered is that walls in the background still show up as their regular lineweight and color, with the line you want to see superimposed over it. This has been logged as a bug and is with the engineers.
  18. Ronin, you can't snap across layers unless you are in Top/Plan view, and the other layer is as well and at the same scale. As an alternate, you can create a layer link. Then you can snap to the objects that live on another layer.
  19. Tad, try Select All ( again. It always works, unless you don't have a viewport crop object at all. That's always possible. To double check that, draw a rectangle and close the edit - if there is more than one crop object VW will warn you.
  20. This, I think, exposes the basic problem with Viewports - the processor and storage overhead. NNA needs to put its best engineers on solving and optimizing this whole process, because it could balloon into a constant nightmare as users start to discover more and more creative uses for viewports. One solution I've suggested is caching a 72 dpi version of VPs for screen display, so that updating that screen version and storing it would take far less power and RAM. Another solution I've suggested is streamlining saves (incremental save), so that only changed objects are saved instead of the entire file. These things in tandem with allowing control over updates as suggested by DWorks would go a long way towards making things work faster. This is not just a problem with VW. AutoCAD stalls in a major way with multiple layouts.
  21. Out of curiosity, what is driving you to use groups more?
  22. Christiaan, good comments. I think we should be given the choice, and your idea about displaying all the objects in one window so we could make choices in one go is excellent. Clearly, once there is a sufficient number of symbols involved, the glut of objects could become similar to the $name nightmare of AutoCAD Xrefs.
  23. Try this: if you don't want the symbol object to take on the lineweight of the class in the new host file, select the object and make sure the lineweight is just a number, not "Class Thickness." If you have nominated "Class Thickness," the class in the new host file will override the lineweight in your standards file. This logic applies to all the other attributes as well. If you have nominated the "Use Class" option, the objects will conform to the host file's class attributes (provided that for that class "Use at Creation" is checked). Note also that when inserting symbols the active class has nothing to do with the class of objects inside the symbol, only with the class of the symbol itself. As a container object, the symbol's class does not affect the various classes of objects within it, except with respect to visibility. Not the clearest structure in the world, but at least we know what to expect.
  24. Susan, I think Mike may have responded by a private message so that in attempting to correct the facts it wouldn't seem he was giving you a public rebuke. I've corresponded with Mike on occasion, and I can assure you he is an honorable person.
  25. When the "target" file and "contributor" file contain symbols with the same name, there is a conflict. I just lost some work because I updated a WGR and an edited symbol in my "target" file reverted because it was replaced by a symbol of the same name in the contributor file. If this conflict arises, I would prefer that VW give us the option of renaming one or both of the symbols. Or, better yet, automatically rename all resources brought in by WGR with some kind of filename suffix. That will allow us to track things a lot better. This could be implemented by having a user-controlled resource suffix assigned the first time a contributor file is referenced.

 

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...