Jump to content

Andy Broomell

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andy Broomell

  1. Interesting, I see you're using a Sill as a workaround to make the bottom jamb. I remember trying this once, but it introduces a new issue: having to always make the jamb depth match the wall thickness. I need to be able to drop this in to any wall and not have to worry about other settings. One solution introduces another problem 🤣 But you're right, it's close, and thank you!
  2. I would like the sectioned jamb to be filled with a section hatch, not just white. Therein lies my problem. I need the window to stay looking like this: I had accomplished this just fine until I dropped the window into a component-based wall...
  3. Yes, I am controlling the attributes of the window with a class. But that's not my question - why does the same window on the same class look different when inserted into two different walls? (And I know what you mean about going into settings and assigning classes to each part of the window, but this works unexpectedly as well, since the bottom of the jamb fills with the hatch in addition to the cut-through side jambs. Sort of like the upper window in my screenshot. It shouldn't work like this to begin with but that's another story.) In the end I want a window that looks like the lower one in the image, regardless of where I insert it. How can I accomplish that without resorting the custom symbol geometry?
  4. I have one window whose attributes change depending on which wall I insert it into, and I can't figure out why: It's literally the same window... In the file below, if you drag and drop a window from one wall to the other you'll see it change. WindowQuestion_v2020.vwx I'd like the window to stay looking like the bottom window. The problem seems to be caused by component-based walls. Anyone have any insight?
  5. Yep, doesn't work on mine. I'll contact Tech Support. Thanks again for confirming!
  6. Hmm, I wonder what it could be then... I even tried creating a section viewport in a "blank" Vectorworks document to make sure it's not related to my template. But the same happens: when I zoom in close to any objects in the viewport, the lineweight doesn't get larger past a certain point. It DOES display correctly when zoomed out. It's simply the "Zoom Line Thickness" setting that doesn't seem to work.
  7. Thanks for checking @markdd. Are you in 2020? I don't remember this issue in the past.
  8. Zoom line thickness seems to not be working for Section Viewports. I zoom in and none of the lineweights appear to match those of objects in my Annotations, but they are set to the same values, and they export to PDF properly. There is no lineweight scaling on the viewport. It's making it quite difficult to do my job. Restarting does not solve. Happens in every file. Urgh...
  9. Although my window and door tools don't seem to currently exhibit this problem, I know I've seen this issue pop up in a place or two in 2020. I've been keeping an eye open today, and I suspect that the dropdown in this window is supposed to say "Time Interval:" rather than just "Time"
  10. I can't seem to get any Dimension objects to recognize when they're set to "No Sketch." No matter what I do, they render as sketched. Other objects such as Lines and Rectangles respond correctly. Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug?
  11. STR pointed out this thread to me which I had not seen. Related discussion here:
  12. Thanks @STR! Glad I'm not the only one seeing the room for improvement in these tools.
  13. Although the symbols might not be placed into the drawing area anywhere, they should exist in the Resource Manager. Make sure the file is selected in the lefthand column, and that the filter dropdown menu at the top says "All Resources" or "Symbols/Plug-In Objects." By the way, if I modify default symbols, I also tend to add my initials to the symbol name so that it's very clear later which ones are mine.
  14. Hi @bc, The markers themselves are being pulled from symbols in the default libraries, which can be found under Applications > Vectorworks 2017 > Libraries > Defaults > Detail Callout Marker > Detail Markers.vwx. If you open that file, you can edit the symbols or customize them any way you wish. If you do, I'd recommend then saving the updated file into your user folder instead, as the default library may get reverted when updating the software. To find your user folder, go to the Vectorworks Preferences and click on "Reveal in Finder" in the last tab. Then navigate to the same subfolder as above and place your file there. Your custom markers should then populate the tool (though you may need to restart Vectorworks). Hope this helps!
  15. I know Vectorworks has stated over the last few years that its goal is to make tools more cohesive and intuitive. While there are many things that have improved, I need to call out the current state of Section Lines / Section-Elevation Markers as being a complete hot mess. Despite being an experienced Vectorworks user, it seems like every time I use these tools I still get tripped up / irritated. And as a teacher of Vectorworks, when it comes time to explain the logic of these tools to novice users, it becomes apparent how desperately they need attention. Today I sat down to gather a list of aspects that need improvement (I apologize in advance for the long post). Confusing Point #1: There are two types of objects that do effectively the same thing, but have small differences: the Section Line and the Section-Elevation Marker. In short, a Section Line object can define a Section Viewport, while a Section-Elevation Marker cannot. However, a Section-Elevation Marker can be “linked” to any existing viewport to pull its drawing and sheet numbers, while a Section Line cannot. Both objects can be non-linked standalone markers. There are other small differences, but in general I’m sure few people even realize both exist. All functions should be synthesized into one simple-to-use tool; there's no reason for them to be separate. Confusing Point #2: There is only one relevant tool in the Dims/Notes toolset, called the “Section-Elevation Marker” tool... but when used it creates a Section Line object, not a Section-Elevation Marker object. This is like the Rectangle tool drawing a circle. Not what one would expect… A tool should create the type of object it’s named for, like it does everywhere else in the program. Confusing Point #3: When you have a Section Line object and Convert to Group, the result is a Section-Elevation Marker object. So one’s kind of nested inside the other? I wanted a Section-Elevation Marker, so I have to draw a Section Line then Convert to Group? Not intuitive, and I can’t think of other tools that work this way. Additionally, when you Convert to Group, any parameters that you’ve set up all get reset, such as end markers, text position, etc. That’s frustrating. Confusing Point #4: Presumably related to the last two points, you are currently unable to use the “Create Similar Object” command (opt+cmd+click) on either type of object. Vectorworks thinks that a tool doesn’t “exist” for either type of object. This also means that I cannot use opt+cmd+click to set the default attributes for future instances of either type of object. Normally you can opt+cmd+click on Plug-In Objects in order to pick up settings and/or quickly draw more of the same. [There’s kind of a workaround by using the Eyedropper Tool with Plug-In Parameters turned on, but this is made complicated by the points above]. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to use Create Similar Object. Confusing Point #5: Aside from the two different linking functionalities described above, the two types of objects have mostly the same parameters but listed in different orders. Neither order makes perfect sense, but they should at least be cohesive. Parameters that control similar things should be near each other. For example, why are Text Auto-Rotate and Text Rotation not next to each other, when one literally activates the other? Given that there’s no reason one tool couldn’t handle ALL the functions, here’s what the combined OIP could look like, including rearranging the order and adding some group headers: Confusing Point #6: End markers don’t work as expected. When you click the “Section Marker Style” button and choose end markers, it brings the chosen symbol(s) INTO the current file’s Resource Manager. However, the symbols aren’t linked in any way to the section markers in the drawing: editing the marker symbol doesn’t update any objects using that marker. There is no connection, so why bring in the symbol to the file in the first place? That’s very misleading. And why use the “style” nomenclature if it doesn’t function like other style-based PIOs? There’s also a bug where if you have multiple Section Lines selected and try changing the markers, it only updates one of the selected objects. If you want to change a bunch you have to change each one individually. Confusing Point #7: The way “Marker Size” works is convoluted. I'll leave it at that for now. [I finally learned today how this actually functions when using different geometry after years of being slightly confused]. It needs to be easy to make these two circles match: Confusing Point #8: Every time you click the “Section Marker Styles” button, the “Beginning Marker” resets. This is unexpected… It should instead show whatever the current marker is. Especially when you want to select an existing section line and make the Ending Marker match the Beginning Marker, you shouldn’t have to re-choose the Beginning Marker. Confusing Point #9: With both types of objects, clicking the “Make All Attributes By Class” button in the Attributes Palette flyout causes the entire bubble to be filled with color instead of white. If you manually set each attribute to By Class it works fine, but if you use the flyout this bug exists. Confusing Point #10: Another tool, the Reference Marker tool, is often used in the same phase of annotating, but works differently. Instead of a “Marker Size,” is uses a general “2D Scale Factor.” I realize this is because this PIO draws the geometry while the other two object types are pulling symbols... But it just adds to the confusion since in the end you want the standalone markers to visually match the section line markers. The Reference Marker tool should also allow you to link the drawing/sheet values to existing viewports like you can with the Section-Elevation Marker. Someone on these forums once suggested using the Section-Elevation Marker tool set to Elevation with lineweight set to 0, instead of using the Reference Marker tool. However, then it becomes difficult to have markers at varying angles while keeping the text and divider line horizontal (another shortcoming of the current section line tools). The great thing about the Reference Marker tool is the "Arrow Angle" which causes the triangle to rotate while leaving the text and divider line horizontal. I’m sure this was probably a bit confusing to read, but hopefully it's indicative of how convoluted it feels to use these tools. Indicating sections is fundamental to all industries, so we need an elegantly-designed tool that just works.
  16. @Steve Nield Also take a look at this thread:
  17. This has happened to me as well.
  18. Now if only you could make objects that aren't Image Props always face the camera (like you can in Cinema4D).
  19. Will this be fixed in SP2? It's still a problem in SP1, and even with the workaround is a pain in the butt. I shouldn't have to think about this 10 times a day...
  20. Note that you can also right click the Class/Layer in the Navigation palette and choose "Visibilities" - it takes you to the same place in the Organization window but should take you directly to the right spot.
  21. Yes, I think the term "embedded" better describes how it works. Although, one of my students recently asked "So it's like the camera gets sucked into the viewport if it's selected?" I said "Absolutely," and now might start describing it that way to begin with 🤣
  22. This was implemented in VW2020. 🙂 In general I think Title Block Borders are one of the best improvements in the new version. You can definitely tell the team has been listening to user feedback to create a tool that works well. Thanks @Nikolay Zhelyazkov for your presence on these boards and for the hard work of you and your colleagues!
  23. Interestingly, a small part of this wish was fulfilled in VW2020, but unfortunately not the most important thing. Essentially you now get a pop-up asking if/how the camera should be embedded into the viewport, but currently there's no way to connect a viewport's Point of View to a Design Layer camera. So I'm bumping this topic for VW2021. New pop-up: This is the part from my original post that we need (#1): Confusingly the new pop-up in 2020 also uses the word "linked"... It definitely got my hopes up when I first saw it. 😁
  24. This is still wonky in VW2020. I would love for something as basic as editing an extrude to work properly. 🙂


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...