Jump to content

P Retondo

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by P Retondo

  1. Thanks for posting on this. I am looking forward to trying out this new feature, sounds like a dream come true (once the bugs are worked out!)
  2. Sorry, Joe, I am behind the times. Contours are, indeed, a site modifier type, as of VW 2016.
  3. You are not using site modifiers in the way they were intended. As far as I know, the site model doesn't work by direct manipulation of contours - it works through objects like pads, which then generate proposed contours. I think you are asking the site model to analyze the difference between two sets of contours, which (again, as far as I know) it is not designed to do. The site model is interpreting your contour polygon modifiers probably in the only way it understands, which is to treat them as pads - something far different from what you expect.
  4. Based on my experience with now dated versions of ACAD, AutoCAD and VectorWorks handle scaling and units differently. All VW objects, as I understand it, are stored in memory as 1:1 in the underlying unit (I think it is millimeters, correct me if I am wrong about that). Layer scales, as Mark points out, only affect graphical display of the attributes he mentions, plus font size. You cannot change the way a line looks while working in a design layer. You can scale attributes in a Viewport by using the "Advanced Properties" dialog box in the OIP. But I use this only for instances when I want to output the content of a drawing at different scales in different Viewports. It makes no sense to have an arbitrary rule that design layers must always be 1:1. There is no difference in the drawing experience or actual geometry of objects drawn in layers with different scales, except with respect to the presentation attributes Mark and I have mentioned. If you want to know how your dashed lines will look, or how much space a block of text will take, draw in a design layer scaled to the output desired for the drawing.
  5. You are looking at either grayed layers (most likely) or classes. Check your navigation palette: is your general class setting (at the top) Show/Modify Others (it should be)? Are any individual classes set to gray that shouldn't? In the general layer setting, you should see either Show/Snap Others or Show/Modify Others. Are any of your individual layers gray that shouldn't be? BTW, when you take a screen shot like this it would be helpful if you included the navigation palette. Also, it is sometimes important to know the VW version you are using.
  6. Jim, I don't understand your comment. My understanding is that ECC detects and corrects errors in memory transfer between RAM and storage, which would be at the operating system level, not at the application level. Is there something I am not aware of?
  7. My dream stair tool would be one that could create 3d stairs from a 2d plan of the desired treads. I have to do it manually in order to create the custom stairs that are needed, more often than not, so it seems like a not-so-difficult task to automate that process.
  8. I would go with a Xeon multi-core processor.
  9. P Retondo

    Hardware check

    I have an XPS laptop purchased a couple of years ago with NVIDIA GeForce GT750M. Works great. I believe the XPS 13 will not accept the external video card, but the XPS 15 will. It also has the integrated Intel card, you have to select the discrete (go to the Control Panel/Device Manager) adaptor to get VW to work well.
  10. For me, having the site modifiers behave exactly the way solid addition and subtraction work would be the simplest and most powerful implementation. Boundary overlap would not be an issue.
  11. This is a common problem, and the more complex the site modifications the worse it gets. Although Alan's solution is spot on from a pragmatic point of view, the situation is not always this simple. It seems to me that the site model is long overdue for an upgrade. Layers of successive modifications should be handled by the software like subtractive instructions to a milling machine. Simpler, faster, more intuitive.
  12. Aa, you do not say what version you are using, that would be helpful. When I look at your screenshots, I have to say I have never seen that collection of results before. Doubt seriously this has to do with any wall style setting. Take care that you have a separate layer for your roof objects, so that you can be sure no other object is interfering. Also, check to be sure your wall offsets and heights (as shown in the OIP) are consistent. This problem could also have to do with your layer elevation "relative to ground plane" settings. I always set up a separate layer created for just the objects to fit to, duplicate the roofs there and sometimes extend my roofs or other objects to be sure they are fully above the walls.
  13. I have been using the Wacom tablet and pen for well over 5 years because of tendonitis. It has solved my tendonitis problem and has been just as fast and efficient (possibly faster) as a mouse - save for the scroll-to-zoom function, which is handled by a rectangular touch zone on the pad. Because the pen executes a click by touching the pad, it is possible for location to drift during that operation, so take care not to move your stylus location when clicking.
  14. Use the reference input fields in the OIP for your first benchmark, and get it to read properly. Take care to set the option to y or z value as appropriate. Then just copy your original benchmark, move it where you want it (using the "Move" tool is most efficient), and it will automatically read out the elevation per its location.
  15. Not an authoritative answer, but my impression from reading various topics in the recent past is that there are still some elements of the program that can't handle large numbers. It happens when you have millions of lines of code.
  16. It's easy to inadvertently change the class you create new object in. Look on the upper toolbar on the left where there are 5 little squares and a dropdown menu. Typically, that should be set to "None" to create objects in the "None" class. You should also check the classes that walls and wall styles are being created in. Those have separate settings that can override the object creation preference.
  17. Perhaps you are not looking at the object in a rendered mode (OpenGL or Renderworks)? Otherwise, the most common reason for this problem is that the object does not have a solid fill. Although you seem to be aware of this, double check - select the object and look at the attributes palette, first item. Also, something seems odd about what you say about seeing the texture when you edit the extrusion 2d object. Textures cannot be applied to a 2d object and would not show up. Are you sure you are clear about the difference between a texture, fill and hatch?
  18. This situation is just unavoidable with the way VW works right now. Peter's first suggestion is actually pretty close to how you would conceptualize the walls if you imagine the rafters having a seat cut on top of wall plates, but normally a framer would not do that on the gable walls, their sloping top plates would actually be lower at the outside corner. David is suggesting that if you fit walls at the interior edge, the side walls would be higher than the gable walls at the corner instead of lower, but there will still be an anomaly at the miter. But since you don't have fit walls to objects, none of that would be of any use to you. However, you could join the corners using "capped join" mode, and then you won't have a miter. But there will be an extra vertical line at the corner on the exterior, unless you are viewing in OpenGL or Renderworks and your textures are properly assigned and aligned.
  19. ARM is a modified RISC chip. Patterson and Hennessy just won the Turing award for RISC, and IMHO it's not just Apple wanting greater control, RISC is more efficient.
  20. Bob-H has given the correct procedure. It's a two-step process - copy the plug in to the plug in folder (depending on how your system is set up, you may have to do this for each user), then edit the workspace to load the plug in.
  21. Count me as one who would not like to have a different file format every year. We pay for Service Select to have access to the most up to date and powerful version of the program, with decent tech support. That would not change if there weren't a yearly "version," I'd be happier with service pack upgrades and perhaps a big housecleaning every three years. On the other hand, if VW were thinking about going to a subscription whereby I would have zero VW unless I paid for Service Select every year, I'd have to treat that like I do Autodesk, which has gone to that model. In other words, I would purchase another software tool.
  22. dc, I take your point that it is logistically much easier to update maybe several hundred instances of a program on cloud servers than many thousands in offices around the world. Plus, that sounds like outstanding response to a bug! All the same, we theoretically have the ability to update our desktops - my internet security program does it automatically every day.
  23. Jim, is it really true that VW2018 will use more than 32 Gb RAM when rendering?
  24. Christiaan, I see your points 6 and 7 as being inherent to a cloud-based system (access from anywhere, easier sharing). Other than that, the rest just speaks to superior software engineering - which I will stipulate the software you like does have, given the high level of your experience. Yes, file management should be made more simple. I'm sure that if file management is better with Onshape, that is due to software, not some personal file management nanny assigned to the project. Updates should be smoother (if NNA could get their engineering together, user control over whether to update would cease to be a necessary thing). The biggest drawbacks in cloud-based are that we lose control of the tools and their management, and that we may be paying more for CAD - if not now, in the future. Good engineering does not come for nothing, and file management, access and server space cannot be free. If the cloud server goes down due to cyber attacks or other problems, all users will be dead in the water. If we are worried about files being pirated, wiped out by hackers, or just lost due to neglect, we will be at the mercy of the corporation to which we have ceded control. That concerns me very much, almost as much as parametric tools starting to dictate a narrow range of design solutions. PS: regarding the point of file security. Correct me if I am wrong, but the project files for a cloud-based CAD system will have to live on the cloud server. My assumption is that the CAD software is loaded on a cloud computer and works with that computer's RAM. Otherwise, every operation and processor request would have to travel over a very small pipeline between your desktop and the cloud. This means your desktop is just operating as a terminal to send commands and receive screen updates. The program is operating in the cloud, the application memory is on RAM on the cloud computer. So every file save is between the cloud computer and the cloud storage server, otherwise we would be waiting forever with every save and that would not work. The only alternative is that the cloud server file is just temporary, requiring that at the beginning and end of work on any CAD file we would have to wait for the entire file to be transferred over the internet. Slow, not really viable. That's why I assume we would have to give up physical custody of our work for this to be practical. BTW, I did check out this scenario for how cloud applications work with AIA Documents tech support, and they confirmed that is exactly how their system operates.


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...