cberg

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?

I just assumed architects in the UK combinate walls and rails all the time....

It's actually an English verb. (I had to look it up...).

13 years later....

It was clearly user error. I had to go through the window assembly and double-check all the classes. I made them all the same as the window class. This is really nice, because before VW2026, I don't think it was easy to make triangular windows. Edit: The quirky little trick to get this to work is you have to toggle the "Interior Side" pull-down menu between the Right Side and Left Side to reset the 2d lines. Once the units look the way you need, you can toggle the Right Side to be the interior side of the wall, as I think VW requires. I always draw exterior walls clockwise. VW26 Sloping windows in plan.vwx

@shorter how do you edit the xml file? It seems heavily formatted and I could easily mess up the formatting.

Is there a trick to getting sloping triangular windows (Created by making a Window Assemblies) to read correctly in VW2026 2D plan? I spent a half hour fiddling around with settings, but I can't figure out what I am doing wrong. I made sure that the windows were not moved in the Z-axis, and the desired cut plane matches the design layer cut plane. In the left window the opening and frame read correctly, but there is no glass. In the right window, I see the entire frame (presumably at the bottom of the unit) reads through the wall VW26 Sloping windows in plan.vwx

Whenever I create a roof, I click on this icon thinking it will help me calculate/convert pitch to angle. 😂 But it's not. It's an icon that I don't recall seeing anywhere else in VW. But there are times when a calculator function could be helpful.

@zoomer. Thank you for your very thoughtful response. I need to read it a few more times, think about it, and see what I can implement. But at least I have a direction for setting up a file that's less confusing and more tailored to my needs.

Maybe 'cause I am dumber than the average VW architect... But I've never been able to wrap my head around stories and levels, or why I'd ever want to use them. They require so much math and specificity that by the time I complete schematic design, my model is already built, and I don't need them. It takes a very organized thinker to figure that all in advance. That said, stories are required to use the elevation benchmark tool. I was wondering whether it would be possible to set up default Story Levels so they transfer from project to project and don't include all the level types and offset designations that import by default into each project. Ideally, I just want three or four layerless stories that reference the finished floor elevation of each level, so I can check them, set the floor elevation, and not worry about accidentally importing new design layers each time I fiddle with the settings in that dialogue box. When I explore the defaults file data for Story Support, I see an xml file, which is likely not editable. But it shows these default level types, along with imperial and metric dimensions... I was wondering if there is a way to set up a project so I only see the default story level information I need? Ideally, I would like to delete all of this out of my default file, and just have Finished Floor (layerless) as my default level type. And have those defaults go from file to file...

Yes. In VW 2025, you could control object-level visibility in "Section in Place" as long as the "Apply object visibility changes" checkbox was selected. To select, you had to toggle "Edit Design Layer" first, then "Edit Section in Place." In VW 2026, there is no way to edit Object Layer Visibility via Section in Place. Unless I am missing something. I agree that you can get around this by entering the Design Layer, but often, Section in Place edits out a lot of geometry. It is time-consuming to go back through an entire model to hide a stray object or line.

In VW 2026, I seem to have lost the ability to control object-level visibility while editing a "Section in Place". In VW 2025, this ability was controlled via the edit Viewport dialogue box. In VW 2026 the controls moved to a contextual onscreen dialogue box. However, this only works while editing the "Design Layer", not while editing "Section in Place". Section in Place Visibility.pdf

Is the answer to this question, "No?" Edit: It looks like the class but not the layer that is active in the design space are active in the viewports when entering a design layer through the sheet layer viewport.

The artistic lines probably draw over the image props. Assuming they are image props. You may hate this solution... But try duplicating the viewport and turning on only the image prop people in the viewport in front.

I can submit. However, with the VW26 Wall Tool, there have been many changes; it's been difficult to understand whether the tool is working as it is now intended or if something is indeed a bug. Edit: Submitted.

There were no responses to this legitimate troubleshooting question. The wall joining functionality does seem to be a bit of a problem in VW 2026. Especially when working with bulkheads or other non traditional walls. Is this a bug or user error? Is the wall tool a work in progress or is this the new normal? I have attached a video which highlights the problem. Sure working in Top (3d) is an option, but many architects work in top plan, and switch to 3d as needed. Screen Recording 2026-02-20 at 3.20.09 PM.mov