Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joe-SA

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Thanks Matt. We are not usually early adopters but with VW2021 we might need to make an exception.
  12. Something like this is what I'm picturing you are trying to make. This is one Custom Stair Object with 4 winders and 5 straight runs. If I need a configuration that I can't make in a single object I will stack two stairs and just offset the top of the bottom run and the bottom of the top run and piece the two together. This can happen with some landing configurations or if the tread width changes in a way the plug-in can't handle.
  13. The DLVP's are always updated first because without doing so nothing shows in Hidden Line in the SLVP. We are not seeing this impact the Renderworks result in the SLVP. We are seeing the same behavior when rendering the DLVP directly from the design layer. It doesn't appear to be an issue with SLVP's at all since it is happening before we even get to the sheet. Renderworks is simply ignoring the cut.
  14. I'm quite certain this can be done in a straight forward fashion using the legacy Custom Stair Tool. If you don't have access to it you can edit your Workspace and move it into a tool palette. This is the only stair tool we use having never found its replacement very useful.
  15. We are having a similar issue with our perspective Section Viewports that did not exist in VW2019 but has persisted through VW2020. We have not yet tested in VW2021. In our case we are creating perspective sections where the camera is not in the room but set back from the cut plane. Although they are generating correctly in OpenGL the Renderworks engine is failing to recognize the section cut. We have seen this when generating section SLVP's using the clipcube. We have also seen this when generating section DLVP's and then creating a second viewport to the sheet from there. In both cases the line work and OpenGL recognize the section cut but Renderworks is showing the full model as if the cut didn't exist. We are getting the same behavior when rendering in the design layer itself. In the attached image you can see the hidden line foreground only, the Renderworks background only, and the combined image. This works as expected in VW2019. Any chance this is also fixed in VW2021?
  16. Make sure the fonts you are using are equivalent on both platforms.
  17. Tight construction schedule and no need for a finished 3D presentation led to a lack of finesse in the model. With more fine tuning and maybe some displacement mapping the 3D could have been improved. This was done in VW2016. Computing speeds and VW's memory management were quite a bit different at that time.
  18. I find it easier to just make the entire countertop out of a FLOOR object and cut the sink opening out of it instead.
  19. I'm not an expert in it but the Surface Array tool may allow you to take a symbol that represents your first extrude and array it along the warped surface. I've been waiting for years for the Extrude Along Path tool to allow for a symbol based profile similar to how the Framing Tool can link to a custom symbol profile.
  20. We recently did a series of log houses constructed with half-logs hung on a standard 2x8 stud wall. We put a log texture on the face of a 5" thick exterior component. We had to offset the side elevation texture to account for the lapping of the logs as they turned the corners. Custom corner log symbols showed the full round ends of the logs while other elements like log brackets and fully modeled gable log trusses assisted in hiding the lack of depth in the wall texture. We used window and door symbols with custom hole cuts and splayed edges to achieve the log recess. We had to 2D mask overlay the flat faced wall in the details with actual half log profiles. This wasn't perfect if your intent is photo-realism but it worked very well for CD production with model generated elevations.
  21. Try a Subtract Solid with a big extrusion to remove the tapered portion from a square stair object. Make it a symbol if you need to clean up the 2D presentation. This preserves the original stair object for later editing. Seems to work with both current and 'old' Custom Stair Tool. My firm is one of those that has never converted from this old stair tool except in special circumstances.
  22. I've been trying to use the Space Style with a Room Name Symbol to organize Room Numbers on a series of floor plans. This feature needs a combination of bug fixes and new features before it becomes workable. I'm finding the list of Spaces and Numbers that show up in the Validate Auto-Numbering dialog is seldom totally accurate. Space numbere 102 graphically in the plan shows up labeled 101 in the Validate Auto-Numbering list, for example. If you exit the PIO after an edit in this dialog and then 'undo' the change....when you re-enter you find the 'undo' is not being reflected yet even though it is reflected in your plan graphics, as another example. There is also a major limitation designed into numbering sequence. Like many different firms, we change our numbering sequence from floor to floor. 001, 002, etc for Basement. 101, 102, etc for First Floor, 201, 202, etc for Second Floor. There is no way that I am seeing to limit the Validate Auto-Numbering to a set layer or story. It calls up all Room Numbers in the whole file. This means when you 'close gaps' in the sequence of numbers in the basement it changes all the numbers on all the other floors in addition to the floor you are working on. It also doesn't know what to do with numbers that start with zeros but that may be a quirk with our system and not the tool. A pre-set number of digits might fix this similar to setting decimal places. You are given the ability to 'close gaps' or to 'add increment number' to duplicated numbers. You can also drag Rooms up and down through the stack order changing their numbers to be in sequence. However, if your floor to floor list is not in sequence there is really no way to effectively 'over ride' any number with your desired number. You have to exit the Validate Auto-Numbering dialog and modify the number for the individual PIO. Once a number is correct it might be nice to 'lock' it from future automatic edits. Its remarkably easy to change all the room numbers in your file to an entirely undesired result while I'm finding it very difficult to use this dialog box to get a predictable result unless your numbering style through your whole project is a continuous sequence with no numbering gaps and your not very particular about groups of rooms staying in the desired sequence. Am I missing something here? Admittedly, there is a lot to take in with all of the settings. Right now I think I'm resolved to switch to the 'manual' Space Number Style and abandon the Validate Auto-Numbering all together. I have also been getting a lot of crashes. Mostly occurring when changing a Space Style and waiting for it to populate the spaces with the change but not isolated to that. I've seen that others are believing bugs with this tool are being worked out as part of the next Service Pack. If that is true I would hope some of these comments can be considered with those revisions.
  23. I have shortened my worksheet with the use of additional criteria such as a specific layer or class or a record field value. For instance, you could create one worksheet for the units on one floor and a second worksheet for the units on a different floor simply by including the floor plan layer in the Database Header Criteria. These worksheets can then sit next to each other instead of in a single column. I've also thought it could be possible to create one worksheet that just showed the images and the tags as a unit types legend while a second worksheet that shows the full schedule without the images in tightly spaced rows.
  24. Yes. Still in VW2018. I got this for the first time the other day. They appeared to be old objects that had been deleted awhile ago and no longer existed in the model but somehow 'stuck' in the viewport. Others in my office informed me that they had seen this a few times and figured out that if you duplicate the layer the phantom object was once on then the object mysteriously appears in the duplicate layer and you are able to select it and delete it. Bazaar. Not sure how they discovered this but it was helpful in a pinch. At that point you should be able to delete the original layer. I believe the duplicate layer keeps all the original layer settings in viewports, etc. Joe
  25. Stairs that transition from open treads to closed treads such as the very simple residential stair in the attached image are nearly impossible within a single stair object. The Custom Stair tool allowed me to get close by configuring a landing at the transition point but that didn't work very well. - What we need to achieve this is the ability to have two independent straight runs of stairs with the ability to 'offset' the centerline of one run in order to get the desired alignment on one side despite the different tread widths. - We would also need to control the side tread extensions per run depending on the open vs closed condition on each run. Independent left and right side controls. - Give us the option to wrap the nosing controls to the side of the treads in open tread conditions. Independent controls for left and right sides and by stair run. - We should be able to align the stringers that are created as part of each of the two runs of stairs...which should be possible with independent control of the tread extensions. - There should be a distinction between the rough frame stringer object and the exposed open stringer trim you see in this photo. The PIO should be able to make both with each located at the desired offset. If a tread extension was desired just at the first tread or two...this could be achieved with a series of short stair runs in direct succession. We don't often create finished interior stair images so we use the Custom Tool to get what we need for plans and building sections. Anything beyond that is custom built 3D.
  • Create New...