P Retondo
-
Posts
1,914 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Marionette
Store
Posts posted by P Retondo
-
-
Doesn't really contradict what Katie says. But I've never really been sure what the meaning of a "lineweight," etc., would be for a container object.
BTW, it's not the active class attributes that would count, it's the class to which the object is assigned (could be one and the same unless the symbol was created to be assigned to a particular class when placed). You probably knew that.
This does work the way you want it to, if the objects within the symbol are created as you normally do ("use class" for everything), and then you convert the symbol to a group and change the classes of the contained objects.
-
Petri, it's my impression the biggest problem with script-based plug-ins vs. those built on program modules or .dlls compiled from C++ is that the latter execute a lot faster. Maybe I'm wrong, but I know this is true in other contexts.
-
Andy, my impression is that STEP is not the current favored file format. It was always intended to do much more than IGES, which was mainly for geometric characteristics where STEP was intended to be a BIM-type standard. I'm not sure that enough people are on board with STEP to make it a real standard.
Maybe someone who knows more than I do about STEP vs. IFC could comment.
-
jw, not sure what you mean. I had to add the Cut 2D Section and Cut 3D Section commands by editing the workspace.
-
Three, the symbol is a container object. The container object's attributes are not shared by the objects it contains. Same with groups.
-
You can try converting your plane to a NURBS surface, then create a NURBS "box" by converting an extrusion at your boundary to NURBS surfaces. Then use the Connect/Combine tool to extend the plane to the boundary surfaces. This is a bit fussy, and sometimes doesn't succeed. The DTM method can take more time, but is more certain to give good results.
-
I wish there were a utility that could copy keyboard shortcut preferences from one version to another, or to restore them after reinstalling VW. AutoCAD stores these "alias" settings in a text file, and it seems to me that since this is such a simple thing it would be possible to extract the shortcuts from one workspace so that they could be imported into another. And if NNA want to go all the way with this, having a mini app that could convert the whole workspace on upgrading - that would be even better.
-
Look at your model in elevation, and take a 2d section (Model -> Cut 2D Section) at the desired height. You can use this to construct a view of the roof in 2d, or you can use it to create a mask to use in annotation space to obscure portions of the roof you don't want to see. That roof viewport is placed below the 2nd story plan viewport on your sheet layer (just duplicate your plan viewport, change the layer settings to show the roof, add mask in annotation space, and send it back).
I don't think there is an easier way to do this. Unfortunately, we can't create a section viewport that cuts through the building on a horizontal plane.
-
1) Make sure your floor slab is filled (check attributes palette). 2) Put the floor slab on a layer that is "above" the stairs. If everything is on one layer, send the stairs to the back.
-
There are times when you don't want both so perhaps in the dialog box that pops up have 3 options:
- 2D only
- 3D only
- 2D and 3D
Exactly!
-
I'd like an option to keep both the 2d and 3d parts of a symbol that is converted to a group, so that I don't have to duplicate it and do the procedure 2 times.
-
Andy, do you have any references that substantiate the comparison between STEP and other formats?
-
This behavior with 2d reshape is just a fact of life. It's annoying, but eventually you will get used to having to hold the mouse button down until you arrive at the desired point.
Until you mentioned the connection with using the marquee to drag several vertices, I never realized that this is what triggers the behavior. Good observation! I'm pretty sure this is a bug. It is still present in v2008, and I will report it.
-
Look in your VW preferences under the "Display" tab, and see if "GDI+Imaging" is selected. If so, turn it off and see if that makes a difference.
-
Richard, does changing the setting in your viewport, per Mike's input, work (Viewport OIP / Render Settings)? Works for me.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
And add an angle to that. That way we don't need to make a hatch for every angle we need in the drawing.
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.
-
All of these add-ons really add up
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?
STEP import/export
in Wishlist - Feature and Content Requests
Posted
Petri, thanks! So does that mean that the VW implementation of IFC format answers this wish list item, or is IFC so limited it can't serve mechanical design needs?