Jump to content

P Retondo

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by P Retondo

  1. The Navigation palette is not part of the Workspace. Sounds to me like you should start out by having them uninstall then reinstall Vectorworks to get a fresh start.
  2. I defer to Pat's superior knowledge. But, if your client has customized their workspace, having their actual .vww file will make your interface identical to theirs, as an added measure to Pat's Designer disabling script.
  3. The other thing you can do is have your client email you their workspace settings file (.vww file). Rename it to something distinctive, enable that, and you should have only their workspace and all preferences for shortcuts, etc.
  4. Unequal leaf is for swing bi-part doors only. I don't know how to do what you want unless you create a custom symbol (see "Use Symbol Geometry" for doors). I would create the configuration I wanted using the bi-part doors tool, then convert to group and edit the way the door looks in plan, then convert to symbol, and check "use symbol geometry" when inserting where you want the door to be.
  5. If it helps anyone, I figured out the correct worksheet formula to substitute into the column reporting rough openings for pocket doors: =IF((G4=('Pocket Bi-Part')) | (G4=('Pocket Simple')), ('Door'.'ROWidth'+'Door'.'Width'), 'Door'.'ROWidth') Provided, of course, that column G reports the door "configuration."
  6. In the real world of construction, a pocket door is placed in an opening roughly twice the width of the actual door. The Vectorworks door schedule is blissfully unaware of this reality, requiring laborious workarounds in the report worksheet. Wouldn't it be possible to easily change this parameter to report the real rough opening required? Speaking of this workaround, the best way would be a column with an "if / else" method, but since one does not know the proper Vectorscript variable names, it's not possible to construct a cell value "if type = "pocket door", = R.O.*2, else = R.O".
  7. Matt, I don't know what version you are using, but if it is recent, you can turn on GDI+Imaging (VW Preferences, Display tab, last option). Then you can set the opacity of a 2d object fill in the Attributes Palette. Placing a white rectangle with opacity around 70% would give the effect of a grayed-out look to the object below. If you want a viewport that shows object below it, you have to assign a layer transparency (if GDI+Imaging is "on") or assign a transfer mode of "Overlay" to the layer if GDI+Imaging is "off."
  8. You need to create a design layer with "Overlay" transfer mode selected instead of "Paint." That layer when converted to a .pdf can have an assigned opacity by %, allowing you to vary its transparency.
  9. Nocolas means to check your video card settings via the control panel app to see if the default processor is the GPU, not something else.
  10. Thanks, klinzey, I will check out those situations. Regardless of that, this is a user interface problem that VW needs to rectify. There should be one and one place only to set the visibility and shadow-casting properties of a light source for ALL rendering modes, and other toggles that affect this behavior should be removed. I had not noticed these changes up through vw2017, but since I started using vw2020 all of a sudden my former methods for lighting are not working.
  11. Mike, I’m having the same problem with version 2020. All of my lights (not in symbols) show up in OpenGL renderings but do nothing in Renderworks. What gives? Anybody know?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. @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.
  15. 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.
  16. @mattryan I don’t think I was of much help! But good on you for sticking with it and figuring it out!
  17. @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.
  18. @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.
  19. @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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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?
  23. 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:
  24. 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.
  25. @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.
  • Create New...