cberg

Duh, now I see it. This dialogue box was closed....

Is there a way to set the Timeline of the objects in a viewport? For example, if I have set up Existing Conditions, Phase 1, and Phase 2 for a project. I can create a viewport for objects that are in the Existing Conditions period. However, can I reuse that viewport and change the time to Phase 1 or Phase 2? Setting Data Visualization to "Phase 1 Complete" only shows objects that are complete in the current time period. Is there any way to set time via the viewport?

I import XYZ point cloud files regularly, and have not noticed any issues with scale beyond the imprecision of my 3d scanner. I do not have the budget to work with Leica or Trimble scanners. Set the VW file to mm. Import the file. Then change the document units to feet or whatever you need. I always assumed the scans happen in specific units and the file accordingly should match... I don't georeference or worry about accurate file referencing. Because I am an architect and we never get those sorts of things right anyway.... In general however the scans overlay reasonably well with the surveys. Just curious what errors in scale others are experiencing.

I think I understand. You are trying to distinguish between "time" and "object status". Can we re-label "Existing" as "Existing to Remain"?

@Rick Berge I am trying to understand why you recommend naming the first phase something other than "Existing". I think both the coffee break video (which I recall seeing but did not locate online) and the VW University video label the first project phase "Existing Conditions." That makes a little more sense to me than other suggestions, but that's just how my brain works. Just curious, is your recommendation based on conceptual/philosophical concerns, or is there something under the hood that will impact how phasing functions?

Thank you very much!

I am interested in this topic. However, I can't view @The Hamma's screenshots and video. I also can't open the "Schemes Template" attachment. Was it removed when the forum was offline?

This diagram explains this change better. I don't think it's impacted by using the P key.

I was wondering why I was randomly making so many copies of things this morning. After some investigation, there is something a little different about the data bar options (I think) in 2026 SP4. In the second Move Mode (Move and Duplicate), the data bar now shows the number of duplicates when selecting the move tool. That's a nice feature. However, you now need to tab several times to enter a numeric value in the x or y direction, which definitely slows me down. I usually leave the second mode on and toggle object retention to move or copy. I usually leave 1 as the default number of copies. I tend to move by distance more than adjust the number of duplicates. It would be nice to hold down a key to instantly go to the x and y values? Or allow a data bar preference option to put the number of duplicates in the second tab? Maybe there is a setting I am missing.

It is really nice to see the Roadmap Updates. And also see the things that have just recently disappeared! 😀

@BG Just curious, my 360-degree wall will fit to the underside of a roof face, using fit walls to object in the AEC menu. Does it not fit to other objects?

@zoomer the problem with two 180 degree walls, is that they render in hidden line with lines, even when joined. @BG When your wall disappears, after you move it, retype the angle in the OIP. I would use 359.9999999, or something just less than 360. It will reappear as a 360-degree shape and will render without lines in hidden line render mode. Edit: Entering 360 works as well...

@Bluetones Viewport was top plan. @Tom W. Turning off Associate Dimensions fixed the problem. Thank you.

In VW26, I am adding dimensions to lines in the annotations space of a 2d Plan viewport. On some angles, I get the following error message, "This constraint is not compatible with other already existing constraints in the drawing". Simple geometry. 2D Drawing. I am working in rotated plan, and the viewport is oriented to match the plan rotation. There are no dimensions in the design viewport. What exactly does this message mean, and how do I correct it? I can draw invisible lines in paper space, and the angle dimension displays properly.

https://architosh.com/2026/03/apple-m5-pro-and-m5-max-introduce-new-fusion-architecture/

At least you are not using Microstation...

Apple's website is terrible right now, and I think the company intentionally designs it (as it does) to thwart analysis. I spend a fair bit of time looking at it. Looking at the specs for these two chips, the big difference between the M5 Pro and Max is the number of GPU cores. From everything I have read about VW, graphics card performance is one of the most important considerations when selecting a machine for VW. The M5 Max chip has 20 GPU cores. And the Pro chip has 40 GPU cores. The number of CPU cores is the same between the two chipsets. While the M5 machines haven't been released or tested, the performance difference will likely be similar to that of the M4 chips with the same configuration. I have attached a screenshot for reference. It looks like there is a 40% difference in Workstation performance (Rendering & Modeling), resulting in an overall graphics card performance gain of 28% between the two chips. As for RAM. I personally have not had any issues with 64GB. 128 GB would be nice. But a lot of that can be managed by closing applications when not in use. Only on very rare occasions am I forced to restart. A lot to think about, but there does seem to be some reason to go with a higher performing chip. Screenshot 2026-03-06 at 8.28.32 AM.pdf

The 128 GB pushes the laptop's price from $3700 to $5400 (both include 2 TB storage), which I guess is a very future-proofed machine, but also a very expensive outlay of money (at least in the short term). Once you get that much RAM, the upgraded chip comes with it. I will do some math using your recommended payback analysis. Appreciate the feedback!

Here is another approach I would test.... You might be able to split the data within Matterport. https://support.matterport.com/s/article/How-to-Split-a-Matterport-Model?language=en_US

Just curious, why was this functionality removed from VW2026?

Sounds like you may be working a little beyond my direct experience. I might start by using a dedicated point cloud editing software, and figure out how to slice the data into reasonable chunks that calibrate one to another in your model. Then I would bring the various point cloud datasets into my model, organized by layer, so you can turn the information on and off. I think(?) the 100M limitation you discuss applies to each point cloud object, but I am not 100% certain. Being a cheapskate, I would start with something open-source like Cloud Compare before purchasing other software to test out your approach. Regarding the accuracy of digital information, I have found that Matterport scans do have their own accuracy issues, so if dimensions are critical, take laser measurements. Let me know how you resolve. (Learning from other professions is one of the nicer aspects of using VW...)

@Bluetones thinking about your question a bit more, the missing point cloud issue you discuss may have to do with the capabilities of your Matterport camera. The Pro2 camera only has a range of 15', so the missing pipes may be the result of your scanning technology not capturing those areas. I had similar issues when working in a warehouse space. The Matterport3 reaches the tops of 60' trees, and works in daylight.

@Bluetones are you using Matterport's lower-density .xyz files or purchasing the .e75 file? I do my own Matterport scanning and import fairly complex files on pretty much every architectural project. The new Matterport3 camera is a game-changer, and if you don't want to purchase one, you can always rent. I prefer working with slightly downsampled versions of the point cloud. Sometimes there is striping, but not often. Typically, however, I use the Matterpak .xyz files, and have never noticed incomplete imports. If you are doing a building + landscape, you can always work with multiple point clouds. While building the model, you can always delete the landscape. Once your existing conditions are set, you can then delete the building and use the landscape as context. Given my limited civil/landscape skills, it is much more efficient than building a site model.

I would not upgrade to an operating system that isn't fully compatible with your version of VW if you are using the software for architectural design and production. If you are only occasionally opening files, it may be okay. Still risky. At some point your older version of VW is going to require dedicated legacy hardware. It would be better to purchase a second computer to handle other tasks.

Has anybody looked at the specs for the new M5 MacBook Pro laptops? The M5 Pro Chips now max out with 64 GB of RAM and offer a fairly decent discount compared to the M5 Max chips. In its chip selection guide, Apple recommends the M5 Pro chip for 3D Design and Animation. Whereas, the M5 Max chip seems geared toward AI training workflows, 3D animation, scientific analysis and simulation, and video editing. Apple also stopped making a 96GB RAM module. Switching to 128 GB of RAM gets super pricey. With this in mind, would it be terrible to stick with 64GB and a Pro Chip?