Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joe-SA

  1. Extending the conversation on #4 above... Not only does the bottom of the frame create a bump in the sill but the lower trim does not shift down when a timber sill is selected and creates a similar bump in the sill along the plane of the casings. When trim below the sill is checked on it should be BELOW the sill and not sharing the same space. Nor does the side trim extend down to the top of the Sill Lip. It stays the same length as if a picture frame trim was intended. When a sloped timber sill is used the side casings must extend down the height of the Sill to meet it and avoid leaving a gap. 9.) The exterior trim on clad units butt up against the projected jambs and do not partially cap the jambs as this tool as always shown. Its a minor technicality but the final width of the unit from the outside edge of casing is always slightly narrower then what will be built. Increasing the width of the casing is not an acceptable work around. 10) The width of the Head Trim should be independent setting from Side Trim. It would be nice if this was true for the Lower Trim as well.
  2. Very good. That is what I needed. Thanks for the quick reply. Joe
  3. Thanks, Jim. Does this include the 'activate serial number' process every time I switch from one to the other and I can go back and forth activating as many times as needed? Joe
  4. Is it possible to load VW2015 and begin using it on some projects while continuing to work in VW2014 for other 'in progress' projects from the same work station? I seem to remember the serial number only able to be associated with one or the other but not both. The reason is that I have a project that would really benefit from the added speed and memory use of VW2015 but I have other files that I need to collaborate on with VW2014 users without forcing them to upgrade as well. For the time being I need to jump back and forth. Joe
  5. I saw this on occasion in 2014. Its not isolated to 2015. I was never able to pin down the cause but it was never consistent. It typically went away with a restart if I recall. I likely ran into it a half a dozen times over the past year but it was never something I couldn't make go away with some basic trouble shooting. Joe
  6. The Best and Worst part of Vectorworks is the ability to customize most tools as you wish. Best, because you can tailor the look and feel to your firms needs and Worst because you need the knowledge base in order to take advantage of the customization available. I've been working in Vectorworks so long that my firm practically works on a proprietary system that would in many ways be foreign to even the most experienced VW user. For example, I really don't see a need for a specific footing tool. As I posted over two years ago earlier in this same thread and as Wes recently repeated, custom Wall Styles for foundations and footings as described above worked well then and continue to work well now. Stepped footings are created by simply shaping the top and bottom of the footing Wall Style. Even if you have a foundation wall with a continuous top of wall but need a stepped ledge to follow grade on the face of it....this can be made with a single Wall Style with two concrete components. One component set to stick to the wall height while the other is set to stick to the shaped top of wall edits that follow the stepped ledge. One wall object creating both continuous top of wall and a stepped ledger. Even I, who has been working in VW since 1996, took a while to realize this duel functionality could be built right into a single Wall Style. So the point is...often times a new specialized tool is not needed. What is needed is maximizing the use of the existing tools in ways that are undocumented. New users can only hope to stumble on these methods on their own or to learn them in places such as this forum. New users who have just learned one of these 'tricks' often ask 'How would I have known that? Where do I find that in the manual'. This is where NNA needs to put much of their time, in my opinion. That...and Roof Components. Joe
  7. From your resource browser create a new resource and select Script Palette. Name it something like 'Tools'. Then create another new resource and select Script. Give it a name such as 'Revise Issue Manager'. From the Resource Browser select the arrow next to Script Palettes and then right click your new Revise Issue Manager Script and select edit. Cut and paste the script text that was posted into this section. Be sure to select Vectorscript as your language at the top. Save. From the window menu, pull down to Script Palettes for your drawing file and open your Tools Palette. Double click on your new tool to run the script. Move this palette and/or script around to any of your files just like any other internal resource that is managed by the Resource Browser. Both scripts can be run with this method. Hope this helps. Joe
  8. You might be interested in this thread. https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=37913&Number=187398#Post187398 I highly recommend downloading the two scripts that are noted. There is a chance VW 2015 has addressed the need for these two typs of interface with the Issue Manager: 1) wiping out all Issue Data in the current file 2) Editing the Date or Name of a previously issued sheet set as a group of sheets instead of sheet by sheet. Joe
  9. The current method is to use the Extract Tool to extract the surface of a wall into a Planer Object. Be sure to set this in the settings of the tool. Once created you can apply any 2d hatch to this plane and get it to show in 3D. You can use the Attribute Mapping Tool for origin, rotation, scale, etc. Be sure to toggle on Display Planer Objects in the OIP of the SLVP. The down side is that the extracted planes float over the wall surface and the two have to connection. Future edits to walls or windows will also have to be made to the extracted planes. Its a toss up whether this method is better or worse then 2d hatches in annotations of elevation view ports. It depends on the job. However, if you need 3D hatch this is the only method I know of.
  10. We've never adopted the 'new' stair tool. When first introduced it was inadequate in many ways I won't get into. Over the versions it became better and better but never good enough to cause us to switch away from the 'old' stair tool now called 'Custom Stair'. Neither is perfect but we still see more flexibility with the Custom Stair. Even with the Custom Stair we sometimes need to 'stack' two separate stair objects on top of each other to make a single, multi-run stair. If you have the stair tied to the layer heights you can still set your offsets from the top or bottom so they show as a single stair. You can also manipulate how they show on both upper and lower floors. We run into this most often when an open tread stair run extends past a wall and becomes a closed tread stair on one side only of a continuous run. Very common residential stair that can be impossible to make with one stair object. This could be fixed if the a setting to 'offset from center' was added to each stair run.
  11. Two thoughts here: 1) A co-worker just used the Framing Member Tool - Rafter mode to quickly model every seam. Works quite well. 2) A while back I tried to modify a board and batten texture to include displacement mapping at the battens. I couldn't get it to come together quickly or intuitively and didn't have time to train myself to properly make this overlay. It seems to me that a Standing Seam texture could have a displacement map added to it that extended the seams above the roof plane adequately to cast shadows. Step by step training videos on the Service Select site would be very helpful here.
  12. I ranted in length about this issue a number of weeks ago without much discussion being generated. Holding out hope for the future. https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=39910&Number=198111#Post198111
  13. The return can typically be treated like its own character and can often be inserted into a line. If you type a couple letters then a return and then a couple more letters you can typically highlight just the carriage return and cut it to the clip board. Alternatively you could type the whole line as you want it into a text object and then cut and paste it..carriage return and all...into the field. From the object info palette you can use your arrow keys to move up and down between the different lines. How the text displays usually depends on which PIO you are putting the text in. I've written some custom PIO's and had to make sure the text control point was on the bottom if I wanted the new line to be above the current one or on the top if I wanted the new line to be below it. Joe
  14. With the 'Use Layer Color' toggle you can combine grey layers and black and white layers pretty well. No layer gets a 'grey' setting but you override the existing colors with a 'grey' color. You can choose how heavy a grey you wish to use in the color palette. We have also stacked layers or viewports underneath large polygons that we then dial in a desired level of Opacity. This allows for a high degree of control over how light and dark the 'grey' items look on screen or print.
  15. Years ago I used the Handrail (straight) PIO and configured a variety of Fence Styles. Although not perfect it made for a very quick approximation especially when stretched between Post symbols made for this purpose. The top rail was removed by assigning to a class that gets turned off. Unfortunately this is limited to the shapes possible with the Railing PIO and no pickets or dog ears, etc. Always wondered why something like this wasn't part of the program.
  16. A major wishlist item for me is be able to base EAP geometery on a Symbol. No need to ungroup or cut and paste. OzCad's 3D Manager which is now obsolete had this capability 15 years ago. In this way the same symbol can be used as the base for numerous various paths and one point of change is reflected on each of the paths that reference the symbol. Another major deficiency that was lost with 3D Manager was to allow the textures of the individual components inside the EAP to be used by Renderworks. We used to be able to extrude a gutter, fascia, soffit, and frieze in a single object but achieve independent textures for each material based on the classes of the objects inside the reference symbol. Currently in VW this would require 3 or 4 independent EAP's each with their own class. A revision such as a change in overhang then requires changes to multiple EAP's instead of just one. The only thing current EAP's have over 3D Manager from over 15 years ago is that EAP's are co-planer...a major gain in productivity but unfortunately not without having to take 2 steps back at the same time.
  17. Nice video and nice modeling. I have viewed that before. However, my post had far less to do with the nature of creating the model and far more to do with what happens there after with the use of Section Viewports, Detail Viewports, Annotations Layers, SLVP's, DLVP's, break lines in details, Auto-Numbering, etc. Your video doesn't address those concepts. We've debated this before in a different thread but I also disagree (as I described above) that parametric tools can not be used to create models that can generate details. I've done it with what I believe to be a very high level use of the parametric tools (walls, slabs, roof objects, etc) and would like to do it more. The impediment is not the parametric modeling tools but the presentation tools. Joe
  18. Wishlist of improvements that could solve much of these issues: 1) Fix the Out of Memory crash issue. 2) Create 'Live' sections that update along with the revision that is taking place in the model. These could crunch in the background similar to Renderworks views. 3) Add Break Lines to Detail Viewports. Give us the ability to define break quadrants and the area to be removed. The Viewport would then 'zip' the detail to the desired display. I believe rival programs have something similar. 4) Give us a new edit mode for SLVP's. Similar to how we can now edit Symbol in place while seeing the context of the rest of the model...give us the choice when editing a SLVP to either go to the Design Layer (current method) or an Edit View where all of the Design Layers linked in the SLVP become visible but the rest of the SHEET is also still visible as a grayed background. This not only would improve the coordination of Design Layer and Sheet Layer details when they exist next to each other but could perhaps allow all overlay graphics and notes to be created on Design Layers and not in Annotations at all. This would improve the drafting while preserving the Auto-Numbering. Maybe this is just as simple as making all Annotations Layers automatically part of the Design Layer list with gray view of the SLVP in the middle. (I actually got this idea while typing the first three so it needs some flushing out. I think there is something there, however.) Joe
  19. In searching the archives it looked like the topic of details created by the model hadn't really been discussed lately and I wanted to to know what solutions others are using with the current state of the program. Our work is mainly Period Style Residential Design. We've been modeling crown assemblies along our eaves and rakes with EAP's. We are using Wall Components and stretching the sheathing and siding components down over the floor slab and up to the roof line while keeping the stud component between base and top plates. Using components in the floor slabs. We model our Roof by creating our own Roof Components with stacked Roof Objects so we can extend sheathing out to the drip line while stopping the framing at the bearing line and drywall at the inside face, etc. We are creating ledges in our foundation walls with multi-component wall styles and dropping one component down as needed. We have footing wall styles. Foundations and Footings are controlled by class to allow us to either hatch or dash based on display in plan, section, or elevation without additional drafting. We can generate fairly complete detailing directly off these models with Sheet Layer Viewports and when pulled off an overall Building Section with a Detail Viewport its even auto-numbered. When we want to make a change to a skirt board or a crown assembly we can change the profile in one or more EAP's (why are these not symbol based) and all the elevations, building sections and details can reflect that change with a simple regeneration of the viewports. Beautiful right? First, the Out Of Memory error and crashes that occur whenever we try to regenerate a series of these viewports make the approach nearly unworkable. Second, it is quite cumbersome moving in and out of Annotations layers to add overlay graphics and notes?even between common scaled details on the same sheet. We still need to add Detail Wood Sections, Linear Material PIO's, hatches, some line weight profiling, etc. Its one thing to do this layer by layer but detail by detail is too much. At times we created a single overlay viewport and drafted all overlay graphics for all the details in a single Annotations layer. Not an ideal work around and any shift or sheet change of a detail required a separate cut and paste or shift inside this separate Annotations layer. Third, we first started doing these detail sheets by cropping down Section Viewports. Vertical breaks were made by duplicating the viewport and adjusting the crop. We would often have 2, 3, or even 4 individually cropped viewports making a single Wall Section detail?.each with their own Annotations Layer and each needing to be regenerated with the slightest change to the model. The promise of the Detail Viewport when introduced fell flat when no ability for Break Lines was included. We didn't really want to individually reference and title each vertical break of our wall section. We tried to use some hybrid of Detail Viewports and duplicate Section Viewports in order to keep the auto-numbering but in the end it was more trouble then it was worth and the Detail Viewport wasn't even worth using in most cases. Fourth, we still needed to create some details that were not linked to the model. Sometimes we drafted these on Sheets inside annotations layers but typically wanted to draft these on Design Layers and viewport them into sheets. The problem here was not being able to edit these details while seeing their relationship to the surrounding details on the sheet to avoid any accidental overlap. In the days before Sheet Layers details of all scales could be displayed on a collection of Design Layers at the same time so each could be edited in context of the other sheet contents. Now we are seemingly caught in limbo. Hope for a solution came with the introduction of Design Layer Viewports. Surely all this mess would be fixed by moving model based details to the Design Layers. Fifth, when first introduced there was no option to 'flatten' DLVP's. Being only 3D models or plans it was a non-starter. Now that we can display in 2D flattened sections you would think DLVP's creating Details on Design Layers would now work... but no. The graphic quality of the DLVP's do not match what can be achieved in SLVP's. So much so that I consider DLVP details only suitable as underlying guides with all or nearly all of the detail created in 2d over top of the model. In the 2014 SP3 release notes it lists many improvements to 'flattened' DLVP's but in my first tests they are still not good enough to change my mind here. Sixth, since DLVP's have no Annotations layer and do not reside on SHEETS we have lost our ability to Auto-Number our details linking plan cuts or reference bubbles directly to their sheet if they are created via a DLVP. I have been struggling with details generated largely or even mostly from the model on the Sheet Layers with pretty good printed results even considering the hassles it took to get there. It is difficult to justify this method, however, when fellow coworkers of mine wish to abandon it. I have one coworker who has taken to complete 100% 2D drafting of his details on Design Layers. Once the initial outline is found with the model then no further link to the model is continued even as an underlayment. The promise of revisions happening to one object being reflected in detail after detail throughout the set is lost in favor of the speed of layer management and predictability of the 2D drafted detail. Revisions are made old school?one detail at a time. Its currently very difficult to argue against this approach. So much for the promise of integrated 2D and 3D drawing down to the detail level. I'm curious how others see this topic, what the state of their current use is, and what we see as the future goals both short-term (next release) and long-term. Joe
  20. Design Layer Viewports that reference information from other files should still be seen by a Worksheet and call in the data its searching for. In theory you should be able to create a blank file, reference in all the different floor layers, then generate your schedule from that file. I created something similar to automatically generate a Drawing List from multiple external files. Here I use a referenced symbol from each file to bring the data that gets found by my Drawing List worksheet. I'm not using the VW method for generating schedules directly from the door and window PIO's so I can't speak to that directly. Joe
  21. I subscribe to Dieter's method. For a rectilinear floor plan I would always orient square to the page for ease of layout for every other aspect of the drawing set. I would orient the Site with North up or whatever orientation makes sense for that particular site. I would then rotate the view port of the building onto the site plan and move it in to place. Often times we develop the site model including the additions of roads, walks, drives, retaining walls, trees, etc. in a completely separate file and then DLVP the building into that file for the creation of not only the 2d site plan sheets but 3d presentations that include the site development. Rotating the DLVP in that file is a minor extra step. Using multiple files allows multiple users to work a the same time as well as keeping some of the file size down and simplifying some of the information management. This approach has some merit even if one person is doing all the work. Joe
  22. So we never upgraded past 2014 SP1 due to the frequency of crashes users who post here found with SP2. Our experience with SP1 has been the occasional crash due to panning and zooming and the occasional crash while manipulating wall joins mostly. Other common crashes are a result of the Out of Memory error that occurs when trying to update a series of Section Viewports or Rendered Viewports. We never do these more than one or two at a time and save between each one knowing we will crash at any moment. When it happens we can open a very recently saved copy and continue to update. Far from ideal but not enough to have forced us back to the original release. Its sounding as if I just might get better performance with SP3 or at least the same performance described above but likely no worse....esp if I dump VW Preferences. Do the current 2014 SP3 users agree with that assessment?
  23. My original goal was to merely expand a Custom Tool script. I have a script that calls the Line Tool and sets the Class. The corresponding Class is preset with the desired attributes but is also set to draw with a custom Line Type. My tools work well as long as they are used in a file that contains the proper classes and line types that are in the script and the classes are set to use the desired Line Type. I wanted to expand the scripts so that if I ran these Custom Tools in a file without those Class settings or Line Types the script would set them accordingly. Thus the need to import a Line Type from the Default content and set a Class to use that Line Type. I'm a pretty Novice script writer and the information you have provided helps. For the time being, however, I have all of my CAD users simply opening up a template file that contains all of our new custom line objects set to the proper class and line type. One cut and paste of the whole group imports all the Classes and their settings and also imports all the Line Types. Doing this makes all the Tool scripts work as desired. Improving the scripts, however, will eliminate this step.
  24. I'm trying to find the functions for Line Type settings. Not Linestyles but Line Types with the repeating graphic in the Resource Browser. I'm not finding anything in the function reference. I'd like set a custom Line Type to a class and/or set a Line Type to a custom Tool. It appears the Custom Tool function doesn't recognize active Line Type settings. In an ideal world I would be able to call a Line Type by name and the script would find it in the Resource Browser AND if it wasn't in the browser it would look for it in my Default Line Styles file.
  25. Actually, the Roof Object tool can make this...it just might take some sequencing to make it. The bearing heights of each segment can be set individually. This is how you would make a saltbox roof with unbalanced gables. Create the whole roof to one height and then move the bearing heights of the 3 higher segments up to the higher bearing height. Often times the overhangs can cause issues during the intermediate shapes needed when moving from one segment to another. I took all the overhangs to zero, made the shape, then added them back in. In the end, however, I had a single roof object making the exact shape you requested. Joe
  • Create New...