P Retondo

I often combine my wall cladding elements into one wall component, so that with cavities or components displayed I see only the outer line of the wall and the stud line. There isn't any 3d modeling advantage in showing hidden components within walls, such as the boundary between sheathing and outer cladding. As noted above, viewports will allow you to choose between displaying components or not. An easy workaround is to do all your dimensioning in the viewport annotation space with components visible, then turn off visibility of components for the final plot version. Then you can dimension to face of stud. At 1/4" scale, you can't really see the component lines anyway, even if they are displayed.

Sorry, you are so right!

Francois, thanks, but the scenario you describe was not the issue. The bug I reported has been confirmed and, hopefully, will be fixed soon.

Marietta, word is that NNA is working on providing the ability to rotate coordinate systems in an upcoming release. Right now, you can't easily do it, though there are workarounds - for example, you can create a layer link of your survey in your design layer, and rotate it so that it aligns the way you want.

Mclaugh, I have to disagree with you about the usefulness of taking a reading based on comments here. Further, complaints are not linearly proportional to the size of the user base. Users who have read about an instability issue in a thread here are not likely to immediately repeat the complaint, therefore the volume of complaints is damped once they are voiced. I now regularly skip threads regarding crashing on the Mac OS because there is nothing I can learn or contribute on those issues - and there are quite a number of those, compared to crashes in Windows. I have nothing against the Mac product or systems, and it doesn't mean I wouldn't consider purchasing a Mac. But I think my earlier statement is a fair and considered observation based on a number of years' participation on the board. BTW, my wife is not nearly as sanguine regarding Dell computers. She uses a Dell laptop (Inspiron) that has had quite a number of problems.

Eric, again, it would be easier to advise if you could tell us more about what you are trying to do. Based on my experience with both programs, I don't think you are going to find what you are hoping in VectorWorks. The polyline tool can't be made to work by dragging in a direction, enter number, click and drag in another direction, type one key and <enter> to change modes, etc. It just isn't set up to be used as productively as ACAD's tool. On the other hand, you can do some of these operations using the VW polyline tool - it just takes a little more effort to tab through the data fields (at the top of the screen) to get to the "L" field, or if you are working orthogonally, you can tab fewer times to use the "x" or "y" fields. Changing modes (straight, arc, etc.) is accomplished by hitting the "U" key. The biggest drawback is that you can't control the radius of an arc easily, or its other characteristics. On the other hand, I would challenge anyone to get results faster in AutoCAD when compared against using methods more "native" to VW. For example, the following polyline was constructed using the "Add Surface" tool very quickly: Similarly, you can draw lines and arcs and combine them into a polyline using the "Compose" tool. These are the methods I use most often, and having used both programs, I definitely prefer the more intuitive and additive processes that work best in VW. These processes are more flexible for designers, as opposed to the data-entry orientation of the ACAD polyline tool.

You can stretch a rotated rectangle using the 2d Reshape tool. Click on the center of a side and drag. Look for the "perpendicular" or sometimes "parallel" cue to know that you are stretching it orthogonally. Enter a distance in the "L" field of the data tab if you want to stretch it a particular distance. I believe that the rectangle is an object defined by two points in VW's geometry core (my speculation). If true, asking them to change the definition might create much more trouble than it is worth, as many other modules of the code are likely dependent on that definition.

"BIM" stands for Building Information Management, more of a database concept than an CAD design and visualization idea. But if you are asking, why can't VW do what ArchiCAD, and maybe Revit, can do with "live sections". . . we've been wondering that for a while. Suffice it to say that VW is making enormous progress towards something that much more expensive programs got to first. To expand on the use of the Section Viewport, many of us work in 2d atop the "live" section to make the graphics more acceptable. One can do this in the annotation space using constructed 2d objects. We can also use the "2d Section" tool (add this to your workspace using the workspace editor) to get the boundaries of all cut 3d objects - or you can convert a copy of the Viewport to lines and scale it up by the inverse of the Viewport's scale.

Polylines can contain arcs and other mathematically-defined curves, polygons can consist only of line segments. That appears to be the most essential difference between the two, and, like a broken glass, polylines can be converted to polygons with a bunch of little line segments approximating the curve, but not vice-versa. Either can suppress the display of an edge using the 2d reshape tool. Select the rightmost mode on the tool options bar at the top of the screen (icon looks like a horizontal stick person, headless and with an arrow for a torso). When you get the hollow triangle cursor, click to make the edge disappear.

Yep, I've had zero problems with 3 successive Dell computers. Can't say the same for my Macs and HP laptop. Based on comments made to this board, it seems that a distinct majority of problems with crashing, deleted files, and corruption are coming from computers with the Mac OS. Katie probably has a better handle on this than any of us, but it seems that over a number a years now VW has tended to be more stable on a Windows system. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who are very happy with their Macs.

Galloloco, you are correct that the "Cut 2d" and "Cut 3d" section tools are not "live sections." The "Section Viewport" is the live section tool. As Peter points out, the old 2d and 3d section tools are still available, but are not loaded into the default workspaces. Use the View -> Create Section Viewport command to get what you want, but don't expect it to work perfectly! This capability is definitely a work in progress!

Very happy with my Dell Precision 960 w/ Intel Xeon Dual Core 3.2 Ghz, 2 GB RAM and WinXP pro. Very stable, very fast. In 12 years of owning Dells I've never had to get one repaired. All in all, enjoyable to use. I made the switch from Mac when I was in grad school and had to work with a compiler that would only run with Windows, and though I like Apple as a company, I'd have to say that the speed of PC's has been a better value, up until now. Apple has always made better-looking products, and perhaps they are now catching up with the processing power gap. I've never had a problem with the Windows OS, once I adapted to the differnces between that system and the Mac. The days of DOS are long gone, everything in Windows is based on a graphic user interface. If you go with "Wintel," I wouldn't recommend a 64-bit operating system. Get the 32-bit version, as much peripheral hardware still won't work with 64 bit.

Entasis, viewports live on Sheet layers, which don't have the option of showing other layers. If you look at your View/Layer Options when a Sheet Layer is active, you will notice all the items are greyed out. I don't know what you mean, exactly, by "open one of my viewports" - you can't really "open them," unless you mean that you have selected "Edit Design Layer." Clicking that option will take you to the design layer. You have left the Sheet layer, it is no longer active. When you do that, I believe the layer view setting reverts to whatever it was most recently set to. So that may explain what may be happening. To get VW to behave the way you want it to, follow Katie's advice and use Saved Views instead of editing the design layer via the Viewport.

Okay, got rid of the interior lines in hidden line by editing the 3d extrusion ONLY so that only the 2d goes all the way to the other side of the wall: Still looks the same in Top/Plan view.

Heather, one other solution I would try: since the perpendicular leg of the T goes the full height of the wall, it would be possible to create a symbol that consists of an extrusion that goes ALL THE WAY THROUGH the wall. Then make a 2d polygon with the desired fill as the 2d component of the hybrid symbol. In 3d this will model correctly, though on the interior wall you may get a couple of lines where the T leg is inserted. Also, note that you must use a fill pattern rather than a hatch in order to get the hatch lines to line up properly, and that the insertion point for your symbol should be set up to occur at the wall midline. Also, you have to follow Robert's advice above about the insertion mode.

eas, the simplest thing to do is to attach records to the symbol. 1) Create a shape, make it a symbol 2) Create some records that correspond to the info you want to be unique to each symbol instance. 3) Place your symbol somewhere on the screen. 4) Create some text fields formatted and located the way you want. 5) One by one atttach those as records to the symbol. Once you've done all that, select any inserted symbol and edit the information in the OIP data tab. For more detailed instructions on the above steps, see help or your manual.

Pete, thanks, yes, that is what Mike and I came to (see above).

I always put notes now on the Sheet layer to keep the design layers free of clutter, and for maximum flexibility. If you export the sheet layer as a .dwg, you will get an AutoCAD layout in Paperspace that contains all of your viewport annotations. All of your design layer objects will show up in Modelspace as well. Bear in mind that AutoCAD treats 3d objects very differently from VW, and your consultants will probably want just 2d representations of things. So this conversion can take a bit more effort than just exporting the .dwg file. I always open the file in AutoCAD and explode blocks, remove wall fills, etc., which can take up to ten minutes or so. Alternatively, you can convert your walls to lines and clean everything up in VW. Put that stuff into a separate layer so that it can be isolated in ACAD. With some minimal effort you can make this go smoothly for the folks at the other end, and avoid the #@!#&* VectorWorks syndrome.

Mike, thanks, I already did your option 2, which worked pretty well except that one of the upper chimney faces followed, not a horizontal line, but the angled line at the base, and had to be rotated. Too bad we can't control how textures map. We need to be able to model masses like these quickly and easily, particularly where, as in this case, it's an as-built condition.

Is there any way to fix the way the brick texture shows on this fireplace (a solid subtraction)? Obviously, I want the bricks on the side to be horizontal, as they are on the face, instead of arbitrarily turning 90 degrees. This texture is applied as a Perimeter map type.

It's good to read interesting perspectives on the practice of architecture in varying parts of the world. I thought architects in the US had a tough time! That baking tin story takes the cake. Unless there is a tradition of healthy fees and prerogatives for the architect in Germany, I'd have a hard time choosing to be an architect there!

I doubt your file size is affected to that extent by the number of objects. It usually bloats because of images, either imported or stored by viewports. But I'd be curious to know if you have tinkered and discovered how much the various strategies for displaying a floor add to the file size.

Charles, how much of a gap is there between the Info Editor and having a two-directional window/door schedule? Is there any chance NNA would license the tool from you, for distribution as a native part of VW?

Graham, looking at those two samples, I would say that the first one is overlit (I see from your post in another thread that you have four suns - are they all on?). Bear in mind also that if you have lights on in the layers that are assembled, via layer linking, into a model, all those lights multiply. Keep your lights on in the model layer only, and multiple lights casting shadows can cancel each others' shadows. All I can say is that my renderings don't look anything like your examples. Katie is offering to take a look at your files, I'm sure she can put you on the right course in short order. Just to convince you that it's possible, here's a massing study properly lit, no textures, just fill colors in RW final: Or take a look at Peter Cipes' examples.

Is ccroft the same as Charles Chandler? Christiaan, I can confirm the Symbol-inserted-as-PIO behavior that you describe. I also tried an alternative interpretation what was suggested by ccroft, i.e., editing an inserted Symbol / PIO instance in the OIP. Only the single instance changed, not previously inserted instances. It appears to me that the "insertion as PIO" feature just automatically converts the symbol to a PIO, something that we can do manually with a command, and gives us exactly the same results. In other words, that object is just an "ordinary" PIO with no special powers. Apologies to Charles Chandler and those who support his third party tools, I have the same kind of issue with them. We've spent a lot of money in the past on third party and in-office customization, only to find that the money has to be spent again when a new version of the program is issued, or that the 3rd party program is no longer supported and/or isn't around any more. I wonder why NNA doesn't bring successful third party software into the tent, and sell it as supported add-ons that would have the prospect of becoming permanently reliable tools? That seems like it would be a win/win/win for all involved.