Jump to content

Andy Broomell

Member
  • Posts

    3,160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andy Broomell

  1. You can right click a Class in the Navigation Palette, or in the Organization dialog, and choose Delete. This should spur the pop-up allowing you to choose the replacement class. If there are no objects on the class you delete, then the pop-up won't appear; you'll instead get a pop-up simply asking if you really want to delete the class.
  2. This just fixed the same issue for me on a 2015 MbP. Thanks!
  3. If anyone is in a scenario where you're designing a handrail using prefab parts, such as from King's Metals, it can be easier to figure out the design & layout in 2D first before jumping into 3D. And in cases where you don't even need a 3D model, then this 2D geometry just becomes the drafting. The great thing is you'll have better control over attributes such as lineweights.
  4. But that surface hatch will never match the detail/design of the texture. I think @line-weight points out a valid limitation of the texture approach. You'd only get a rectangular outline of the shape, not the individual components represented in the texture. That being said, I would still likely use the texture approach, then I'd render the viewport with a Shaded background render (to get the texture) and Hidden Line foreground (to get vector lines). This is what 95% of my elevations are set up as.
  5. Sometimes I find that "Surface UV" refuses to respond to any mapping (rotation, scale, offsetting, etc.). But only sometimes. Maybe you were experiencing a similar issue.
  6. Are you able to post any screenshots or even the files?
  7. Just a guess, but make sure that in the Style definition, "Title Block Graphics" is set to "By Style": If it's set to "By Instance" then each title block instance can have a different Layout, so updating the Style doesn't get pushed to those instances.
  8. Go to Vectorworks Preferences, then choose the "User Folders" category on the left. It should show your current folder location at the top, and there's also a handy "Reveal in Finder/Explorer" button to take you directly there.
  9. I've noticed this happening lately in SP3, more than it used to...
  10. I wonder how different it looks on Window vs Mac. This is what it looks like for me on Mac, which feels fine to me: Screen Recording 2023-01-17 at 1.33.37 PM.mov
  11. As soon as you have multiple, the word "Design" would be confusing. I can't imagine referring to different layers as different "designs." "Layers" or "Design Layers" is fine. Neither "Designs" nor "Design Spaces" match how they're actually used.
  12. I can't believe we still don't have manual control over the Default Light. The current behavior is unintuitive.
  13. Technically Vectorworks has "Design Layers" and "Sheet Layers." Both of these together comprise "Layers" in Vectorworks; at any given moment, you have one Active Layer that you are drawing on, and this can be either a Design Layer or a Sheet Layer. That's why Design Layers and Sheet Layers are in the same dropdown list in the view bar. They're indeed different types of Layers. That being said, while your initial comment that "Sheets are not layers" is inherently incorrect, it does stem from a valid criticism of the terminology in the program. "Design Layers" are often colloquially called "Layers" as shorthand, so it's then confusing when a user hears "Sheet Layer." Shortening the latter to "Sheets" makes a lot of sense. You're not the first to request that these names be reexamined, and I'd back up that request as well. As Tai points out, the change would have to happen first in the UI of the software itself, and then the tutorials could be updated to stay consistent with the UI. But as it stands, the tutorials are currently correct in saying "Sheet Layers."
  14. It’s under File > Document Settings > Document Preferences, Dimension tab. Note that this is document-specific, so you may want to change this in your template file and re-save your template.
  15. I've had this setting mysteriously turn itself on a couple times, so who knows 😅
  16. It seems as though "Unified View" is turned off, which is something that you'd typically only want for legacy/outdated workflows. Which version of Vectorworks are you using? If in 2022 or 2023, go to File > Document Settings > Document Preferences, go to the "Legacy 2D" tab, and make sure "Turn off unified view" is unchecked. You can also then try unchecking the first "Enable legacy 2D features" option, though it might not let you if there are already Screen Plane objects in the document. But the unified view thing is the important part.
  17. Unless it's change in recent years, I believe it always uses the first Line Type from the current file's Resource Manager, that is, alphabetically. There have been requests over the years to be able to specifically choose which linetype it defaults to, but nothing has been implemented. One workaround is to simply re-name the linetype you typically want so that it falls first in line (such as "1. Medium Dash"), though I realize this may not practical for everyone depending on naming standards and/or resource sharing.
  18. Commenting in order to follow this thread and hear what other folks say. I'm assuming you've tried selecting all the objects and doing Modify > Convert > Convert to Generic Solids, and/or making them a Solid Addition? I've had mixed success with this for imported items...
  19. There have been many wishes over the years to address this sort of situation, where a viewport could look at a particular object as opposed to dealing with Class/Layer Visibilities to isolate something. Typically the request is to add the ability for a viewport to "look at" a particular Symbol definition instead of at a Design Layer. However, this has not been implemented, so in the mean time there are a few other ways to approach it: The way you're doing it works fine, but another similar approach would be to make a separate Design Layer for each item, instead of separate Classes. That way, Design Layers are used solely for visibilities, and you don't have to worry about Class Attributes, nested classes, how classes relate to Auto-Hybrids, etc. You'd still be able to use Classes if/as necessary, but it wouldn't be tied into the idea of isolating items for drafting. One drawback in this workflow is that stacking order becomes a slight pain (if you care about 2D representations in Top/Plan and have lots of overlapping objects). Stacking order in this scenario can only be addressed by rearranging Design Layers. That being said, for 3D-centric workflows, this Design Layer approach might be slightly friendlier than doing it with Classes. Another approach some folks use is to have one master Design Layer with all items assembled. Each item is a Symbol. That way you can place another instance of each Symbol, each on its own separate Design Layer, for the purpose of isolating that item for drafting. Since they're all symbols, when you update an item in the context of the combined master Design Layer, it ALSO updates on the isolated Design Layer, and vice verse. This workflow is advantageous in workflows where units might be "moving around" in the master Design Layer as the design evolves (such as stage scenery), since problems arise when you move objects after creating viewports. In this workflow, since viewports are looking at separate isolated Symbol instances which don't move, this problem is avoided. This workflow is also useful when each item might have multiple instances duplicated throughout a design, but only needs to be drafted once. I don't believe there's currently a way to isolate objects in a viewport bases on Object Name, but that would be an interesting suggestion to tie into future improvements as mentioned above (for example, perhaps you could create a Viewport from scratch and get a list of Symbol Names and a list of Named Objects, then choose one of these as the basis for the viewport). Some day... Hope this helps. Others might have additional workflow ideas.
  20. Confusingly, there's both a "Set Working Plane" command and a "Set Working Plane" tool which are two different but similar things. Regardless, the contextual option proposed in the original post is a smart idea.
×
×
  • Create New...