Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joe-SA

  1. You can also use classes to define textures or create a texture bed site modifier to drape a texture over a small portion of the overall model. However, I'm noticing that once I add a texture bed to a model it doesn't want to delete from the model even after the texture bed modifier has been deleted? Thoughts? I have a textured area I can seem to get rid of. Right now I'm thinking I might need to regenerate the model from the source data and re-apply my pad modifiers. Joe
  2. Try it with two 90 degree winders at the corners. You might even put in a single riser straight flight between them if just the two winders don't work. Joe
  3. Is this a single roof object or a collection of roof objects? I've noticed a number of issues with the Roof Object in VW2013...one of them being that Roof Objects configured as a single plane will not allow holes of any kind to be cut into them. I have no choice but to use a Roof Face in this instance. Joe
  4. Is it only in OpenGL and not in Renderworks that you can turn on the hidden line work at the same time as you generate the textured image and shadows and therefor get both of them in the same viewport without the need for multiple stacked viewports or exporting out of VW? We've used this in 3d perspective views. Makes for an interesting image when you sketch the linework on top of the textures. Haven't done much with final elevations, however. Joe
  5. We've been having the lack of memory issue ever since we started generating building section and elevation viewports from our model. We've also been experiencing some lag in the screen display regeneration. I think this is a combined problem with Vectorworks memory management and your hardware. After extensive discussions with our IT consultants our current theory is that its the amount of dedicated RAM on the graphics card. Even though my iMAC has a 3.06GHz processor and 12GB of RAM and 500GB harddrive....it only has 256MB of dedicated RAM on the graphics card and unlike macmini's the iMAC graphics card doesn't have the ability to share the system RAM so 8GB vs 12GB of RAM makes no difference. New smaller iMACs only have a base graphics card and 512MB of RAM and can't be upgraded. We didn't think that was enough. The 27" iMACs can get an upgraded graphics card and you can increase the dedicated RAM. We just ordered a couple of these that have the upgraded cards increased to 2GB of RAM. This will be 8x the graphics card processing power of my current machine. To say the least, we are hoping these upgrades solve the problem. Joe
  6. Create the Planer Surface with the Extract Tool in the Model Menu. Then apply your 2d hatch to that. Use the Attribute Mapping Tool to modify the origin. Unless its been fixed there is a bug in the Attribute Mapping Tool. If you turn it on and immediately begin to 'nudge' your hatch to a new origin it won't 'stick'. But if you manually move the origin with your cursor to a new location first and then use your 'nudge' it will stick. Hope this helps. Joe
  7. In your Render Modes settings you can up the quality. I had to do this in both the Open GL settings and the Custom Renderworks settings. For renderworks there is a specific 'Curved Geometry' quality setting. I had extruded a crown assembly along an eyebrow roof eave. In order to get a reasonable curve I had to up the quality to the point where it took 20-30 minutes to generate the rendering. Not very effective. In addition, my hidden line elevations wouldn't generate smooth. Here I had no option where I could increase the quality. I had no choice but to mask over it with 2 polygons. This is one area where some improvement is needed. (one of many, that is) Joe
  8. And while your waiting for the plan revision to finish calculating your always wondering if you are going to crash. In general, crashes are way up in VW2013 from VW2012 and a large percentage of them deal with wall revisions or wall component revisions and manipulating wall joins. Sometimes seemingly simple tasks with walls toss me out of the program. Joe
  9. There have been some complaints about the interface but we typically do the 3D hatch. Once you get the interface down it goes pretty quickly. Adjusting origin might be the biggest hassle. We choose this method even with renderworks at our disposal. Might have to give Peter's method a shot, however, because it does take a while to get to exterior elevations that are presentation to client quality when you are relying on the model to generate exterior trim, crown mouldings, etc. Joe
  10. One of my biggest complaints when comparing Roof Faces and Roof Objects. The Axis Z is an elevation that results from taking the lower outside corner of a roof face (looking in section) and extending it along the roof pitch up the slope for the length of the overhang to the point where you drew the inflection point of the slope in plan when you created the roof. Usually the face of the wall/sheathing. Depending on whether you have a double miter, vertical, or horizontal eave this point could be on the top or bottom or somewhere in the middle of the depth of the roof face. I never tried to predict it. Just adjusted the height after creation. With the Roof Object tool having bearing height and bearing inset parametric input you get much more predictable results. You might be interested in this recent thread. Joe http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=181872&Searchpage=3&Main=35191&Words=shed+roof&Search=true#Post181872
  11. I've made symbols of information to be referenced into a worksheet in the first file (FileB). Then not just imported the symbol but imported as a reference into the second file (FileA). Then placed that symbol into the drawing in FileA. Now a worksheet located in File A sees and pulls in all the data that is in the referenced symbol that is still located in FileB as long as its criteria is searching inside symbols. The referenced symbol can be edited from File A and the changes can then be sent back to File B. Or the symbol can be edited in File B and the reference then updated in File A. With the fairly recently added ability to edit symbols 'in place' while seeing it in context with the surrounding objects it may no longer be very cumbersome to work with many objects scattered about a plan that are placed into a single symbol in order to facilitate the above. I haven't done this with architectural data but I have done this in order to get sheet data referenced from many different files into a single file in order to generate a single Drawing Title worksheet. Joe
  12. Just discovered a bug in the Roof Object tool. When making a Roof Object into a single plane shed roof it will no longer allow you to cut holes in it per VW2013. This worked fine in VW2012. If you take a gable roof object with a hole cut in it and then turn one eave into a gable to make a single plane shed the hole disappears. The polygon is still embedded in the roof, however. It just doesn't cut anymore. The latest SP2 update doesn't fix it. Looks like there is no longer a choice here between Roof Faces and Roof Objects. Good thing they fixed the rendering issues with Faces at least. The other issues with Roof Faces mentioned in previous posts still apply, however. Joe
  13. I've been editing my wall styles and adjusting the heights of individual wall components. I make a duplicate of my standard exterior wall style and tag for use on the second floor and then edit it so only the sheathing and siding components extend down the depth of the floor framing. I make another duplication of the base wall style and tag it for the first floor and extend the outer components down to the top of the foundation walls. Now in my building section all of the profiles of the building components come in just like it would get built. You can even blow the sections up to detail level and not have to add much to it at all. Something else you can do on the second floor is to set the wall style used for the second floor exterior walls to have the framing component and interior drywall component to NOT follow the wall peaks. Now when you extend the wall up to the roof at a gable then the stud wall stays at the plate height and also won't show up in your detail section. This way your gable wall doesn't overlap where you want a truss to go...whether you choose to model the truss or not. Saves a lot of time masking and redrafting at the detail stage. Joe
  14. I've found that if you have curves in your profile and want them to show in hidden line rendering without the facets of the curve you need to convert the polygon profile to a NURBS curve. This works well when modeling gutters and mouldings. I also take the VW columns plugin and make it a symbol and then add circular EAP's to create the base and head trim. This gives me nicely profiled columns in 3d that also need no extra linework in elevation. Joe
  15. Updating this debate with VW2013 tools...along with ideas for much needed improvements. It appears the Roof Face and the Roof Object tools have been moved a little closer together. How texture is applied to Roof Faces have been improved to match how it is applied with Roof Objects. Also, symbols for skylights, etc, can now be inserted into Roof Faces the same as Roof Objects. Key differences that remain are the inconsistent bearing height of roof faces with changes in Roof Face eave condition. Also unwanted changes in fascia height with changes in Roof Face pitch. Why such an incremental improvement to Roof Faces and not a wholesale change? Do away with the mysterious AXIS Z setting of Roof Faces and match the Bearing Height and Bearing Inset of the Roof Object tool. Bring the methods of cutting holes and shaping edges closer together by making the Roof Face method match the Roof Object method. (Right now I'm teaching employees how to cut holes in Roof Faces and Floors, Roof Objects, and Slab Objects....3 different methods for 3 very similar operations. Is this not kind of crazy?) This improvement to Roof Faces would also give overhangs a parametric control like Roof Objects instead of relying on a polygon reshape. It seems to me that rather then taking the Roof Face tool and slowly over many upgrades making it more like Roof Objects we should just add a Single Plane Roof Object tool that functions exactly like a single plane roof object I can make on my own but only after many modifications to the hips that are created automatically every time a make a new Roof Object. Give these new 'single plane roof objects' the ability to extend and join to other roof objects or other 3d geometry to match what the Roof Faces can do now. Wouldn't this be the best of both tools and converge two very different interfaces into one? On a side note, I've been experimenting on turning on the 'attics' of the Roof Objects and using them to add ceiling joists that align with the rafters created with the Framing tool. If we have the ability to do this along with the ability to toggle on gable end walls (which I have never put to practical application) then why can't we add a control for 'truss knee height' in addition to 'bearing height' with automatic toggles for turning on solid shapes representing the perimeter chords of a truss? This feature would also create a vertical solid at the high end of a shed roof where the vertical chord of mono truss would run. In this way simple building sections get a solid hatch at the ceiling plane without the creation of a separate ceiling slab. They also get solid hatch at the vertical ends of the trusses when required without additional modeling or 2d patches. Similar to the current 'attic' feature the Framer then uses these shapes to automatically generate at least the perimeter of each truss using the Framing Member PIO (simto the current method) or create a new Truss PIO that the Framer could use to fill the area defined by these solids created by the Roof Object tool. It doesn't seem like the current technology is too far away from these features. Here's hoping for VW2014. Oh, and all that with Roof Components, as well. This would probably lead to the hole cutting and edge reshaping method of Roofs to want to match that of current Slab Objects as the ultimate goal of the roof tool development. How many upgrades will be needed before we get there? Joe
  16. Can you create a wall component the depth of your panels and then create a wall recess for the seams? This is assuming the design is a series of flat panels with a Fry Reglet-like reveal. Is the surface area of the wall still available with this method? I've used a similar approach in more traditional recessed and wood trim wall panel details. This method would give you pretty good up close detail in 3D. If the up close detail isn't required and your panel grid can be made with a repetitive 2d hatch then the extract surface method might be easier. Joe
  17. I was able to DLVP them from one file to another...that is Design Layer to Design Layer...but that is where it stopped. I found no method to get them from the Design Layer in the Satellite file into the Sheet Layer. I used the DLVP for reference and manually traced over top of them with my own custom 2d mark which, in turn, I was able to bring into the SLVP. Joe
  18. We did this same customization a couple of years ago. There is some pretty good information in the HELP menus. Atari was correct...certain prefix in the record field names tell VW to get the information from the Layer data among other things. You will also need to set up a Sheet Border object that then references your custom title block symbol into it. This gives you the ability to use the Issue Manager to send data to each of your title blocks. You will no longer be able to edit your symbol to input data. The data will need to come from Issue Manager if you want to put dates or client data into all your title blocks. We repeat this process with each file, however, if you were to place a 'referenced' symbol of your title block into each of your project files it can be pulled into a Sheet Border Ojbect for each sheet. You may need to keep your project data static in the symbol instead of linked to the project data pane of the Issue manager but the auto-numbering you are trying achieve should still be possible. As a side note, I created a Sheet Border Object that did not have a border and did not have the 'center on sheet' toggle checked and used it to create a large title sheet object that contained the project title and address. It pulled in a custom symbol created for this task. This object now updates right along with the title blocks. You may want to incorporate this script I wrote which will modify your dates and notes globally after you have already used the Issue Manager to set a bunch of title blocks. http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=163089#Post163089 Pat Stanford's script to Clear All Issue Data is also very useful. http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=126725#Post126725 Joe
  19. I've used this method on numerous residential projects and although I have also had similar issues. When you consider the alternative for black and white construction document drawings is 2d hatching in annotations, however, I didn't find this method so horrible a process as to never use it again. I created a preset set of classes with most of the exterior material we typically use. I place all my planer objects that are on one layer in a single group for easy manipulation with the Show Groups toggle off. If later revision is more then a simple reshape of existing perimeter or openings I just re-extract it. I have noticed a bug in the Attribute Mapping tool where if you nudge immediately after selecting your object the new location won't 'stick' but if you drag the origin to a new location and then 'nudge' it will stick. For the planer object 'bleed through' bug we've done 2d hatch patches just on those elevations to fix it or we have actually classed our planer objects to another tier per elevation allowing us to turn off the backside elevation while keeping the front side on. Whenever this process does break down, 2d hatch in annotations used in conjunction with it seems to get us to what we need. I'm not defending this process and saying it is 'good', that all the suggested improvements are not valid, or saying the process isn't tedious. All true. Still - its a method I will likely use until such time as it gets replaced with a better method. Joe
  20. My understanding in VW2012 was that Section Viewport marks created in one file could not be displayed in a Sheet Layer Viewport in another file. In a Design Layer Viewport, yes, but not Sheet Layer. If you were able do this in VW2012 I'm curious as to how you did it. I complained to tech support last year about how Section Marks showing in a design layer would not show in a SLVP that references that layer. You had to manipulate the Section Line Instances from each section viewport and those viewports can not see beyond the file they are in and so there was no way to get the marks onto a sheet in another file. If this process has been altered for the better in VW2013 it would be a very positive improvement. I suggested they just allow SLVP's to display Section Marks that appear in referenced design layers. Joe
  21. I use custom wall styles for footings. Pillers for monolithic pads because walls clean connect to them easily. Top and bottom steps are very easy to achieve and edit as you are just editing a wall profiles. I create multi-component foundation wall styles in order to offset a brick ledge. I have a variety of widths saved to the library for quick reference. Its relatively easy to duplicate a style and modify a component height offset for special ledge height conditions or just to convert to an un-styled wall in a pinch. I've also been stepping the bottom of my main floor wall styles to overlap the floor deck and sill plate with brick extending down to the ledge height. The ability to tell individual components to follow or not to follow your wall peaks allows you to keep your framing and drywall component level with the floor while you create steps along the bottom of the wall for the brick component to follow. Simply snap the bottom of your main floor wall to the stepped ledges you created in the foundation plan. Use the same settings to keep your framing locked to your plate height while your sheathing and siding extend up to your roof peaks. With lines and hatch controlled by class I can modify the dash style and fills of both the footing and foundation walls just by overriding the graphic settings in those classes as needed as I move from foundation plan to elevation to building section. (this is a hassle to setup as the VW standard styles are not controlled this way but I think its worth the effort to redefine your wall library to accomplish this) Its interesting the difference of opinions. I personally cannot imagine achieving my desired output in plan, elevation, and section WITHOUT the use of parametric objects. Joe
  22. I prefer creating wall peaks. When I don't have other walls to snap to I layout lines or locus points in elevation and snap the wall peaks in accordingly. Joe
  23. There are many approaches you can take. Within each wall style you can set individual components to have either their top or bottom edge offset from the original wall object top and bottom. You could define each different step in thickness as a different component and set the height accordingly within the definition of that component. You have a Pilaster PIO which could be used to create the plan offsets. You also have the Wall Sculpting tools which can be very effective in creating recesses in walls or to add an appendage to a wall without destroying the base properties of the wall. Even with the steps at the components you may find it helpful to create a lower wall plan for your doors and an upper wall plan near the roof. If you don't have a clean horizontal cut line to achieve this you can step the tops or bottoms of the stacked walls accordingly to achieve what you need in the floor plan while maintaining the model integrity. Similar approaches are frequent when dealing with split level floor plans. Joe
  24. I'm not in VW2013 yet but have spent time taking an overall building section viewport and copying it to a new sheet layer, modifying the scale up to detail level, and re-cropping. Then doing it over and over to assemble a series of cropped and break-lined viewports to lay out a sheet of details. I was hoping this tool would ease that process and improve the memory management of regenerating all those cropped viewports. It is clear from the 13 documentation that there isn't any inherent way to add break lines inside the viewport allowing one wall section VP to be chopped down with breaks for display purposes. Instead a 4 part wall section with 3 areas of break lines still needs to be created with 4 individual detail viewports just like I make it now with 4 individual cropped section viewports. This is a big step backwards in my opinion. If the auto-numbering does not function the same as the current Section Viewport marks as you state then it is another giant step backwards....perhaps to the point where the tool gets shelved until further development in a later release. A concept I'm all too familiar with, unfortunately. I had high hopes for this feature as it is sorely needed if you wish to generate the bulk of your details directly from your model. Joe
  25. The help menu actually is a good source. It took some doing to get our custom title block set up to work with the Issue Manager and auto-numbering but once done it is worth it. Note - the Create Drawing List command doesn't work with custom title blocks but you can create your own custom worksheet to achieve the same result. Joe


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...