Jump to content

Joe-SA

Member
  • Posts

    222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

32 Great

1 Follower

Personal Information

  • Location
    Grand Rapids, MI

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm going from deep memory here but wasn't there a situation a few versions ago where EAP's with 2d base geometry in the profile vs Nurbs would give different results in sections vp's? I remember having to return to the problem EAPs and converting all profile objects to Nurbs to resolve how they appeared in section. It's a vague memory and I haven't seen it in some time now.
  2. I've had a busy schedule and often go months without jumping into the forum. It's only been recent weeks as I'm turning some attention back to upgrades and standards that I'm getting into it. I don't think you are wrong. For interior and exterior colors you can separate the trim finishes but not the frames, sashes, or doors. That is one big advantage the VW tools have. I believe you are correct on your other issues, too. When Julian was hired by Nemetschek I anticipated new VW Door and Window tools that were the best of both worlds. I have to assume that is still coming.
  3. Well, these are not the only tricks up our sleeves with WinDoor. We have certainly run into a number of challenges getting what we want out of it and the solutions are not always evident but we've mostly managed to get there one way or another. For about 10 or 12 years now I take every upgrade and look at the improvements to each tool and I'll admit its been a close call in recent years but I've always come down on the side of WinDoor. For a long while I feared WinDoor would just up and go away and I'd be forced to switch. One of those tests is always a triple unit with a single arch with sashes shaped to the arch. My current understanding is neither tool can make that. We use the VW tools for Overhead Doors and mix them in at other times as needed but that is a rarity. Here is one example of a challenging situation I use in training new employees. We have a foundation wall with the need for inset framing ledges on both sides plus a brick ledge. (BTW-this is made with a single four component wall object) For the purpose of having a clean foundation plan the face brick wall and interior furring walls are always separate from the concrete. In this case, that meant every opening was a collection of 3 WinDoor objects in order to achieve the end results...one to cut each of the three walls. This was needed so that they worked everywhere we needed them to work....interior, exterior, section, floor plan, foundation plan, etc. We are almost entirely residential so we may not face all the problems others run into and certainly in VW there is always many ways to to skin the cat.
  4. As a 20+ year user of WinDoor I thought I would add some thoughts on the use of WinDoor Sills and try to clear up some of the confusion inherent to them. We are able to get just about everything we want out of WinDoor but not without developing some tricks along the way that are not self evident. I have not spent much time with them in VW2022, however, but I don't think they have dramatically changed. First, there are 4 different objects called 'SILL'. The 'Frame Member-Sill' and the 'Internal Trim Sill' and the 'External Trim Sill'. Each of these show up in section in about the same elevation. We always had issues with the External Trim Sill's inability to drop down below the 'Frame Member-Sill' into a traditional sub-sill location. A number of years ago we started to use the fourth sill, the 'Wall-Sill' to create our wood sub-sills where we wanted them to show. The 'Wall-Sill' is designed for brick or limestone sills and we use it for those, too, but with the tweak of a few settings they work great for wood trim sills as well. This graphic is pre-2022 but I think the only thing missing is the component wrapping features. I created this to help illustrate to new employees how to get the proper sills in our models using Wall-Sills. The only real 'trick' for doing this in standard frame walls is that the Wall-Sill only shows up if it the window or door is offset from the face of wall with a negative number. We just drop -1/8" here to turn the Wall Sills on. The graphic below shows how the block nature of all these components are intended to align with true unit sections setting us up properly both in elevation and section. Mostly we are able to use the 2D settings within the WinDoor Settings to get what we want in plan with only a few minor compromises. A trick we do with the trim and aprons is to set the depth to 1/4". The trim object in the PIO has to sit on the face of the siding and cannot overlap it the way it would be built in the real world. We get a more realistic relationship between the face of siding and the face of trim. In section, we can simply overlay a 2D trim profile to finish it out. In the second graphic we just didn't take the time to go the extra distance to model the board and batten as it wasn't necessary for the completion of the CD's but it illustrates a wood frame window and a brick veneer with limestone sill window next to each other. WinDoor Tool - Wall Sill not Trim Sills (1).pdf
  5. At the bottom of the Render tab of the OIP of every Wall object there is a toggle called 'Use World Z for Origin'. Turn this on for all your walls. If you need a unique alignment you should be able to use the Attribute Mapping Tool.
  6. So i removed all my roads from my site and left 6 Aligned Hardscape objects on site. Only two were actually touching. I also had 1 non-aligned Hardscape object and couple of pad modifiers. My regen test caused me to force quit after about 5 minutes. That is an unacceptable wait time. I changed all of my Aligned Hardscapes to Slab Modifier Hardscapes and retested. I was taken aback because the regen was nearly instantaneous. It doesn't appear to be a conflict with the roads at all but the Site Model's in ability to deal with Aligned Hardscapes. I flipped locations as you suggested and put the Roads only on the site model with no Hardscapes. Regen took less than a minute. So I kept all Aligned Hardscapes on a different layer and created 3D Polys for them to align too. Then I told the Site-Model to look at both layers. Again, I had to force quit. Locating Aligned Hardscapes on a different layer had no impact on performance from where I started this morning. I think Aligned Hardscapes still have value because you can created the warped surface that aligns between objects quite readily. However, all terrain manipulation needs to happen by other means. You cannot ask an Aligned Hardscape to modify your Site Model. You must locate them on layers your Site Model doesn't look at. Side note - why does changing the Hardscape status from Slab Modifier to Aligned change how it displays texture? I can't get the Slab Modifier Hardscapes to show any texture at all while simply switching over to Aligned status caused the texture to appear. For Aligned Hardscapes all the texture manipulation is happening as expected. I'm currently using Unstyled Slab reference with a single Asphalt textured component. I'll try linking to an actual Slab Style to see if that helps. Here it seems I'm just swapping one bug for another. As you said earlier....not quite living up to the promise of the marketing videos.
  7. It's your #6 where you lose me. My Road Object Grade Limit is set to 5ft. This includes off the end of the road where I need to connect the Hardscape. Can I pull that Grade Limit back to align with the end of the road so it doesn't overlap the Hardscape Object? I am not aware I could do that. Additionally, does the Hardscape Object have a similar built-in Grade Limits like the roads? or are you talking about a separate Grade Limits object? I've only ever used one of those per project to define the perimeter of the excavation. I think I'm missing something.
  8. So, to be clear, are you drawing a 3D Polygon to simulate the end of the Road Object and aligning to it instead of the road itself? All while telling your Site Model to use Modifiers from both its own layer plus the new design layer with the Road Objects? I'll test that this afternoon.
  9. Admittedly I do have a lot of conflicts. In the past these haven't caused much of a slow down in regeneration. Right now they are all due to Road Objects with Grade Limits on connecting to Hardscape Objects set to Align to the end of the road. I'm finding that in order to invoke the alignment feature the edge of the hardscape needs to snap directly to the adjacent object with which you intend to align be it a Road Object or a 3D polygon. Isn't this inherently creating a conflict by it's very nature? I just removed the Grade Limits from my road objects to see if that was the culprit but there was no noticeable change. In your experience with Hardscapes are you utilizing the Alignment Settings? I'm wondering if that is, in fact, the issue since it was just introduced with VW2020. This is the first time anyone in my office has tested this feature. I can send you a link to the file.
  10. As a VW Architect user I'm new to Hardscapes and the Hardscape Alignment. I've always found the Site Model object and it's modifiers one of the more reliable tools VW provides. In learning how to use Hardscapes in lieu of pads and 3d polygons I'm finding with every Hardscape object I add to my model I get an exponential increase in the amount of time it takes to Update the Site Model. When I get to 5 or 6 I'm into 15-20 minutes or more. I've removed all of them to another layer and then started bringing them back in to test the theory and I'm getting those results in both VW2020 and VW2021. Without Hardscapes my model regenerates in a short amount of time. Add one in, a little longer and then a little longer. After that I'm force quitting to regain control. My iMac27 is the latest released just a couple months ago with 64GB RAM and 16GB VRAM. It is not the machine. Returning to old modeling methods for the foreseeable future.
  11. To make this a little more clear for newbies......use the concept of the 'container' class. For example, you can take a portion of your floor plan objects and put everything unique to Option 1 in a single Group. Place that Group in a class called Option 1. Do this while the class structure inside the Group is preserved to your original class structure. Turn off Option 1 class and the whole Group is turned off. Do the same for other design options. Groups are only one of many objects that function as containers where the container class can be different from the class of the objects inside.
  12. I agree that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I think VW learned in the early 2000's to add features all they want but be very careful about removing them. The Trim Command vs Split Tool comes to mind. Since then the number of different methods to do the same thing have only grown. I find it interesting that you don't really 'like' the method very much (of placing most or all text and dims in annotations) but you do it because you feel it is the prescribed method. I never felt that way. The first time I tried to do plan dimensions in SLVP Annotations I immediately abandoned it as far too cumbersome with little benefit over what I was already doing...that is, isolating model objects and sheet notation objects on separate Design Layers for floor plan development. SLVP Annotations was a welcome addition in other areas and we use them extensively on every project. It just isn't a hard and fast rule and we don't force ourselves to use them where we feel their use is more of a detriment to the task at hand. For instance, the benefits we gain from generating building and wall section details off of a fairly detailed model far outweigh the difficulty jumping in and out of SLVP's to do overlay drafting and notations. I actually had a long running debate with a former co-worker who disagreed with this and insisted on drafting all of his wall sections on design layers just so he didn't have to deal with annotation layers. That's crazy talk. 🙂 Back in the early days of DLVP's and being able to 'flatten' them I even thought we would move all of our detail development including notes over to Design Layers. The benefit here would be maintaining the model generated wall section but being able to quickly move all overlay drafting elements and notes around without the constant jumping in and out of annotations for each detail. At the time there was some limitation...the graphics of a 'flattened' 2D DLVP wall section just didn't match the graphics of an SLVP wall section so we never made the switch. I think I ranted in an old forum post about this at the time. I never re-visited the issue. I think one of the greatest assets to using VW is the kind of flexibility it gives based on your own needs and preferences. People like RLB who started this thread might be searching for 'the one best method' but it is more about what is best for you. Here you have multiple people who have been using the software for decades at a very high level but all using very different methods and all of them moving forward with the software. It does make the learning task a bit harder for new users but in the end your skillset is better for it. Lately I've had young new hot-shots coming in and actually buying into the system, taking the training I give them, and building on that foundation to advance our use of the program even further. They teach this old dog new tricks all the time.
  13. A couple things to add here.....turn what you import into an Auto-Hybrid object to get proper 2d/3d hybrid output. Also, crank up your Smoothing angle in the Viewport Rendering settings for any hidden line work to eliminate all the facets of the curves. I often use 25-30 degrees.
  14. I guess I'm a little confused by these replies from these very experienced users. As a VW user since the 90's I have a different take. Any time I have text in a Design Layer the scale of that Design Layer will always match the intended scale of the Sheet Layer Viewport. Certainly if I'm cutting a detail from a model then all the text will be in SLVP Annotations and source scale won't matter but many details are simply drafted and noted in a Design Layer and then viewport'ed to the Sheet Layer. Some sheets may have a mix of multiple scales drafted this way. The scale of those detail Design Layers will always match the final printed scale. This insures a 9pt font no matter what scale the detail is ends up the same size on the printed Sheet. The scale of my plan layers (and thus my model) will always match the printed scale of the plan on the sheet....usually 1/4" but not always. My plan notations and dimensions are always on a different Design Layer from the hybrid plans. My fonts scale properly to the printed floor plan no matter what plan scale I'm using. I would never dimension an entire floor plan from sheet layer annotations. The Site Plan Design Layers will also be scaled to the intended print scale. The floor plans (which are at a different scale) get Design Layer Viewport'ed into the Site Plan Design Layer and get re-scaled as needed for both the Site Plan and the Site Model. Again, any 9pt font on a 1 to 30 site plan prints the same as all the other 9pt fonts on all the other scales once they all get to the sheet. The only time this is not the rule is with model generated SLVP's like Building Elevations and Sections or Enlarged Floor Plan details where all the text exists exclusively in the annotations layer in the SLVP. In this instance, the source Design Layer's scale doesn't matter.
  15. Thanks Matt. We are not usually early adopters but with VW2021 we might need to make an exception.
×
×
  • Create New...