Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joe-SA

  1. 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.
  2. 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. ūüôā 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Thanks Matt. We are not usually early adopters but with VW2021 we might need to make an exception.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. Make sure the fonts you are using are equivalent on both platforms.
  11. 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.
  12. I find it easier to just make the entire countertop out of a FLOOR object and cut the sink opening out of it instead.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. Considering that this was 9 months ago I'm not sure what the solved the problem. I know it was not common in my office and did not persist for any length of time. As others have noted...it very well could have been associated with just the one specific file. It has not re-occurred since to the best of my knowledge. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Joe
  21. I'm having the same issue with Autosave. Its just as noted. Autosave simply 'isn't working'. An initial backup is created when the file is first opened and then nothing after that for hours. I never get a 'confirm before save' notice. This has burned me twice today. Here are my current settings. VW2018 SP2
  22. Thank you Nikolay. I actually made that worksheet shortly after my previous post last month. However, I stand by that statement. When telling users that they have no choice but to update their title blocks to an entirely new interface and access to 'Basic Criteria' is required in order to make those title blocks properly display then the VW interface should give clear access to the settings that are needed as I described. Users shouldn't have to go onto a forum and learn how to make a custom worksheet tool in order to make the new required feature function properly. We are professionals whose time is valuable. Expecting or even demanding your users spend extra time to find undocumented answers or even create their own work arounds in order to use a required new feature is unacceptable. My previous title block method worked well. Granted, that was only because my process included two custom scripts that got me past the long standing missing features of not being able to edit an Issue Set or to Reset Issue Data back to the beginning...but my method worked. Now here I am with a brand new system, again, spending my time creating custom tools just to complete the basic functions of the title block. Sorry about the rant but it triggers a sore spot and follows a long tradition with Vectorworks Upgrades (I've been a user it since MiniCAD 5) where new promising features simply are not developed through to a useful completion. Over the past twenty plus years the term 'half-baked' has been used often to describe one feature or another. This instance is a minor point with a fix that is relatively painless. Other features go through years of revisions and are still left somewhere between severely wanting to unusable. I've posted rants in the past describing frustrations with Stairs and Roof Components and many others...most recently with Windows. All basic tools needed for architects to effectively do their jobs. I don't use Roof Components and I've only sparingly used the Window and Door objects since buying WinDoor in the late 90's. I take a hard look at all new and past 'half-baked' features with every upgrade. I stopped being surprised about the lack of development in one area or another somewhere around 2005. There is a lot to like about VW and new users I train often love the program (tho they've never heard of it before) but question by question as they dig down past the shiny surface they learn of these years old limitations that get left behind while VW continues to role out grand new features like Point Cloud importing among others. I've read many times on this forum over the years people wish for a full major release of the program that didn't add a single new feature but just made all the old features work as expected or promised. I think most long time users would love this and wouldn't even mind paying for it. But none of them would hold their breath.
  23. Thank you Nikolay, But to be clear - these settings when accessed through the Title Block Manager do not appear to change anything on any title block. Its only accessing these settings by selecting each title block individually that I'm getting each title block to display properly as you are suggesting. I can complete this in my template page by page and have it preset for future use on new projects. However, what is the use of these settings in the Issue Manager if they don't effect any change in the drawing? Am I missing another step? Every existing CAD file that we update to VW2018 will have to have these setting manipulated sheet by sheet as part of the update process. I have not yet made the worksheet you are suggesting. Perhaps these other settings can be modified in the same way. It does seem odd that you would ask your users to each create this workaround worksheet tool in order to gain convenient access to some basic settings instead of just providing it to us until such time you can actually build it into the Title Block Manager. An 'set to all sheets' next to the Count and Spacing Factor seems like an obvious upgrade along with a SET ACTIVE SHEETS button next to the ISSUE MANAGER button that opens up a dialog box that does the work of the suggested custom worksheet. Joe
  24. Nikolay, Here are two files - the VW2016 file I am updating from and the current state of my VW2018 conversion. When considering how we handle projects that are in progress at this moment.....do we have the option of updating into VW2018 but keeping the old interface? or is it mandatory that Sheet Borders get updated to Title Blocks? I am also in the process of updating my auto-populating Drawing List to reference the new Title Blocks instead of the old Custom Sheet Border Record Format. My format included an 'on drawing list' toggle which controlled the content of the Drawing List worksheet. I've managed to swap this to the Title Block Border PIO and I'm using the ACTIVE SHEET toggle to control what shows up on the list. This is working well right now, however, I can see the contents of a desired ISSUE SET being different then the contents of the Drawing List. I'm thinking I still need to attach my own custom record to the Title Blocks if I want Drawing List and Date Set controls to be independent. I would prefer that a new ON DRAWING LIST toggle be added right below the ACTIVE SHEET toggle. And as others have previously posted....there needs to be a way to control the position of these toggles without having to step through every single sheet. In VW2018 my understanding is that you have to actually go to each sheet and highlight each title block to control the ACTIVE SHEET setting. In the VW2016 Issue Manager you had to step through each sheet but you could do it from within the Issue Manager Dialog box. There really needs to be a dialog box that lists every sheet in the file and each name needs to have a check box next to it that is one stop shopping for setting the ACTIVE SHEET setting. Perhaps it has two toggles if my wish for an ON DRAWING LIST toggle also gets added. Joe SearArchitectsTemplateVW2018.vwx SearsArchTemplateVW2016.vwx
  25. So I converted our VW2016 Template over to VW2018 and updated all of our custom Sheet Border / TitleBlock symbols over to the new Title Block. Graphically everything looked great. However, ...yes, there always is a however...when entering Issue Dates they are not properly assigning. 1) You can see from the Issue Manager report shown in the attached image how many different dates should be showing on this sheet. Yet, I'm only getting two. I've been unable to get any other sheet to show ANY issue data despite the Title Block Manager showing that these dates should be present. I've looked at the Layout and tried to find something wrong with the text block and read the help file but all seems well with the settings. The issues that you see in the report were done in various ways. Some THIS SHEET ONLY, some ALL ACTIVE SHEETS, some ALL SHEETS. None of them seem to be able to properly add the dates. 2) As you can see, the alignment isn't working in VW2018. In VW2016 the Issue Manager filled this title block with properly aligned text without a problem adding line by line on only the sheets that were part of the set. I had a very good handle on the old title block but I don't know where to begin in VW2018. So I need to delete portions of my layout and try to add them from scratch? It seems I'd be re-creating what is already there. Its just not working as its suppose to.


7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114


© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

  • Create New...