Jump to content

P Retondo

Member
  • Content Count

    1,806
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by P Retondo

  1. Sorry, typo. How difficult it is to move text depends on the dimension standard. Some, for some reason, are more tame than others. Thanks for the tip on using to constrain. But, frankly, with the current implementation this should not be necessary. To move the dimension lines, one clicks on the lines to get the resize cursor. To move the text, one clicks on the text. These are handled differently, and unless we are able to move the text relative to the dimension lines in both directions, movement should be automatically constrained without using the shift key.
  2. When I move dimension text by dragging it, the rectanglular box indicating where the text will sit is almost always nowhere near where the text ends up after releasing the mouse button. I don't think things have to be this way. Why can't we drag text to the spot we need it to be? This is a critical capability when trying to make drawings intelligible and clear. See attached image for an example: Speaking of making this work better, it would be nice if we could also drag text in the orthogonal offset dimension (as well as being able to set the offset precisely in the OIP). It would make the workflow faster and easier. With the shift modifier key we could constrain movement to x or y. Also, when dragging the text the dimension lines themselves should stay put. I always have to do this is two steps: move the text, then reposition the dimension lines back to where they were. These things add up.
  3. bc, you had a brilliant idea, but the engineers had already thought of it!
  4. bc, you are missing the command. Use the key to move vertically.
  5. Jonathan, stranger yet, I can't zoom either during either creation or editing. I'm talking about being able to do that while the text window is active and the text cursor is blinking. Whether it is using menu commands, keystrokes, or mouse wheel, none of them now work unless they act to return focus to the drawing window.
  6. I often want to zoom in or out while editing text but can't.
  7. Hi Katie, I tried that, but there wasn't any mode where the visible and greyed layers were grouped together at the top.
  8. Dworks, you're right, this is the capability we want, but not every purchaser of VW has that tool.
  9. Hi Katie, glad you like the idea - how about let's do all of the above, with a new option to display only visible or display all! Or, alternatively, maybe the sort could put all the visible layers (or classes) at the top, where we can get at them easily. The one little glitch with sort by visibility is that the grayed layers go to the bottom of the list, not what we are looking for here. Then, maybe, the key command to go to the next layer up could take us to the next visible layer up (i.e., the next layer up on the sorted list)?
  10. I don't get the part about doing this without creating a section viewport. Why do that? Just create the section viewport at the desired angle, and your section line will be created as well. To reposition the section line endpoints, just drag them. The cursor cue "parallel" lets you know that you aren't changing the angle of the line. You should be in Top/Plan view with the "Constrain angle (S)" constraint mode on.
  11. J, I'm responding to your rejection of the whole VW platform based on a couple of minor complaints, well-justified though they may be. Also, I'm puzzled by your complaint about the flip commands among others, which has always been stable and flawless for me. I appreciated the tenor of the original post that started this thread. It acknowledges the state of affairs with balance and awareness, and points out the shortcomings without rejecting what is an overall success. By contrast, your point of view is that the program should satisfy your every desire, otherwise no dice. I don't mean to come down on you like a ton of bricks here - what I'm saying is that an open mind is a two-way street, and advising (based on my 15 years with VW and 5 years with ACAD) that maybe you should give VW a fair shot. If you read my post in its entirety, and if you were familiar with my participation in general on this board, I don't think you could characterize my loyalty to VW as in any way blind. Same goes for Mike. From NNA's point of view, they probably think that at times we've been savage. By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if NNA were working on some of these long-standing issues. It's public knowledge that the ability to rotate plans, a la ACAD's UCS capability, is being worked on by their engineers.
  12. I'd like to see an option to have the layer drop-down list show visible layers only. We can see all the available layers in the navigation palette now, and this option would give the drop down list a reason to exist. With long lists of layers it would be a real time saver to see only the currently relevant layers. We could set this up with a modifier key (ctrl, maybe) to toggle the option. As it is now, for a typical project the list is so long it requires scrolling to see the layers towards the bottom of the list. The scrolling is particularly slow. Having the sheet layers take up precious space at the top of this list is particularly annoying. And while we're at it, why not make that list more compact so that we can see more layers on the screen? I could easily see ten more items with less space between the lines. Also, it would be great if we could scroll the list with the mouse.
  13. Mike, sounds more like someone trained in AutoCAD who is resisting getting used to the VectorWorks system. Not that I disagree that ACAD has at least two superior methods - move and copy by vector (you click on any two points on the screen to define the movement) and UCS, which allows the user to set up an alternative coordinate system (i.e., allows rotation of the plan to the screen and to all orthogonally defined commands). Mike, do you know if the plug-ins you recommend work in version 12.5?
  14. Try creating a new file, and WGR your corrupt file into it. That might preserve all the objects and the layer structure. It everything comes up, break the reference and save the objects. On the other hand, even with the best outcome you won't be able to preserve any work done after your last successful save.
  15. b, the sheet layer your viewport is on has a dpi setting. It defaults to 72 dpi, which is screen quality. Make it at least 300, and you should be happy. Right click on the sheet name in the navigation palette, -> edit.
  16. Thanks, Brian and Pete. In answer to your questions, the VP is there, but only the annotations appear. If I update, everything shows as it should. What I expected is, with viewport cache enabled, the image from the previous update would persist. So, Brian, my problem seems to be different from yours, and you might in fact look into the questions that Pete A. raises. And Pete, since everything displays fine after updating, this seems to be an issue of VP image persistence - do your Section Viewports maintain the image (with cache enabled and after closing and opening the file)?
  17. I have section viewports that often turn up with nothing but annotations showing, despite having selected viewport caching (and paying the price of having a 350 MB file). Does anyone else experience this? My elevation and plan viewport images persist, and this problem seems to be only with Section VP's.
  18. Dave, my core duo processor has two cores, but emulates a quad core. So having multiple physical cores may not necessarily eliminate the value of hyperthreading. carpalmer, I believe that hyperthreading is enabled/disabled in the BIOS setup, assuming that you are on a PC. Don't know about the Mac.
  19. Brian, select the Section VP object, and look in the OIP for the button called "Section line instances." Click on that, and you can choose where you want the section line to be displayed.
  20. Katie's method is what I would ordinarily use. Two other possibilities: 1) create a custom symbol composed of 3d polygons. That way you can control the textures applied to the the cutting surfaces. 2) Reshape the wall, adding vertices to create the door-like opening (works only if the opening is bounded on 3 sides, not 4).
  21. Very sensitive and insightful comments throughout. One thing to bear in mind is that in our competitive world, NNA cannot always keep everyone abreast of what they are developing. I would say that over a period of years their record speaks for itself - they do take into account user feedback, through this board and other sources, and have incorporated many features and fixed many bugs that have been aired on this board. I would hazard the guess that many of the "half-baked" features, such as framing member objects, were developed so that other programs would not have sole bragging rights. But, caught up in budgeting realities, they couldn't do the job that we, and most likely NNA as well, would be happier with. I think it is correct to observe that too much of this kind of thing can tip a delicate balance and start turning users off. One of the things we can do for ourselves in these forums (that NNA would not be able to do for marketing reasons) is identify those new features that don't particularly work well. We can save each other a lot of trial-and-error time that way.
  22. For typical wood construction, I agree with the details of digital's comments. This would make the display of a stairs object much easier to handle. Pete A. is technically correct about how wood stairs are typically constructed. I think Pete would agree, though, with digital's description of top step detailing. But often the whole top tread and stringer are actually built so that the top tread is co-planar with a floor, typical with many steel-framed stairs in concrete slab construction. So construction detailing is not necessarily consistent across building types. In this case, where the top tread of a stairs is often actually prefabricated as part of the unit, the current system in VW would be more apropos. Islandmon, is this what you are thinking?
  23. drawwhat, you should also think about using the viewport annotation space as a kind of layer. This is a bit confusing to a new user, as the viewport capabilities were added on top of a system that had already evolved. The result is that there are now several ways to accomplish the same thing, but I find that putting dimensions in a viewport is a way of keeping clutter out of the design space. Others find that the lack of dimension association (which only works if the dimensions are in the same layer as the objects) is reason to avoid this method. But, like I say, there are a multitude of different ways of working with VW, each with its own pros and cons. The earlier comment about using layers as a way of having objects with different "scales" simultaneously visible on the screen is evidence of the way we used to use layers to compose a sheet of drawings. Nowadays, depending on how up-to-date your version is, most users employ viewports and "Sheet Layers" to compose sheets of drawings, and the scale attribute of a layer is no longer so centrally important.
  24. Petri, so keeping the Basenjis in line isn't keeping you busy enough. Glad to see your name back on the board! As is evident from the variety of replies, Layers and Classes are somewhat flexible and can be used within a variety of organization systems. At root, they are two very similar organizing concepts - technically, they are object attributes attached to each object in your file, and you can assign both a layer and a class to every object. (Actually, you must assign both layer and class to every object - there are defaults that automatically assign them to every object created, and you can reassign these attributes at will). If you visualize all objects with the "layer-1" attribute bounded as in a Venn diagram, you can see how the layer can be called a "container," but I think that particular term should be reserved for things like the "group," which is actually an object (in that it can be cut and pasted, unlike a layer or class). Layers have special capabilities that make them different from classes (i.e., things like z value and +/- z). The designers of VW have conceptualized them as a way to organize a building into stories, as Petri points out. I commonly use several layers to define one story, as I probably don't want to see furnishings in my final drawing but would during design work. But I could equally well assign a class to furnishings, and turn off that class (like freezing a layer) in my viewport. One of the particularly useful properties of a layer is that a symbol on a layer different from your walls cannot "enter" the wall. So, if you place a toilet symbol next to a wall in your main walls layer, it will get "sucked" into the wall and create an opening in it - as though it were a window or door. But create a layer for equipment, put it there, and you won't have that problem. Layers also have the property that you can change an object's layer assignment by cutting it and pasting it into a different layer. You can't do that with a class. (Classes must be reassigned via the OIP, and you can reassign layers by that method also if you want to.) This special property of layers is related to the way in which layers interact with your current screen. The current view can be defined through layer visibility control, but beyond that, the active layer is the one in which every object is placed when pasted (and, by default, every created object is placed).
  25. Create a polygon that engulfs the vertices to be deleted, and add that to your original shape. Not to dismiss the requested functionality - I think it would be great to be able to select multiple vertices and delete. In addition, I'd like to be able to thin the number of vertices in a poly- object. For example, surveyor's contours often come in to VW with hundreds of vertices where tens would do the job. So my request is that we have a utility that will cull vertices - for example, select an object and cut out 4 of every 5 vertices, and also, select a set of vertices within an object and do the same.

 

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...