Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HEengineering

  1. Pat you are filling it a lot of blanks here. Still seems like a huge leap for a team, but Im grateful for you unwavering support here! Like any big undertaking, I will continue to chip away when I can. Im kinda on my own with this one when the free time permits. I Hope you don't mind if I reach out again in the future. You are an invaluable asset to the forum!
  2. Thats a nice model. I have some similar that show the 5G poles that are deployed all over the US. I like the idea of putting the notes into the design layer and I see why you are suggesting each has its own saved view. That alone is a huge leap in understanding the best workflow. However; I find that if I have to reduce/increase the scale of the viewport all my annotations and dims are now scaled as well. That mean I must go back into the DL and ratio those items to scale or increase txt size or change scale bar. Is there a better way to handle this? I guess this gets back into the annotations area existing for obvious reasons.
  3. Could I not just create one viewport and then duplicate it and just change the view of the VP in the object info? I suspect you can but maybe not the ideal workflow. Regardless while this may speed things Its going to add a lot more DLs, VPs, SLs and classes. Feels like the file overall would simply be heavier in a sense. I need a nice small project to work with to attempt. Nobody seems to talk about DLVP's much these days which I have used effectively in a few ways as well. Is that considered legacy workflow? Often I crop something from one plan and move it to another saved view and simply play with the classes and layers. to get the outcome I desire.
  4. So let's say in the model area that I want to show some soil under the shelter. Should that be a 2d Poly fill/hatch under the model in the model space or a true 3d extruded area for gravel/soil fill?(You cant use a hatch as a 3d fill) I did toy around with the what you proposed and made some head way. How about things like grounding leads and conduits going into the cabinet? Do you draw those as 2d planar? In my mind I guess You model it all. Our biggest struggle is when the client changes equipment and details ripple thru. I would also need to add extensive classing to be able to show the cabinet or shelter in areas without things like conduits and cabling. I could see a workflow where we model only the clients equipment in design layer in a separate model file and reference that in to a design layer in the master file, then make sheet views with details as needed. Let me know if Im way off but I think thats the general idea.
  5. I think I follow what you are saying. Id like to send you a file of ours in a pm just so you can have a better idea of what I say when I say we utilized saved views in the way sheet layers are used. When I publish its saved Views T-1 thru whatever. There are not sheet views. However I think like you said there may be a way to do a little bit of 3d where it matters. Im going to experiment with this idea. and see how far I get. A few questions of course. 1. Where would I put the 2D linework? Another DL with 1:1? In short it sounds like in general you can draw 2D or 3D in DL and then use that as a viewport. The modeled items would then update across all viewports if we were to use sheet views. 2. We usually referencing in the legacy way which is pic a file and the design layers you want maybe leaving a few DL referenced for global updates. I put a few more direct questions below next to the specific statements to make it more easy to read.
  6. So I guess the new Mac minis have the M1? For a while it was frowned upon bc of the shared GPU I thought. Its hard to keep up with all the updates!
  7. The idea is the shelter is shown on the overall site plan if we're using generic terms. Then you might have another saved view that would be like another page for us where many use sheet views we use saved views. There you would see elevations and callouts about the shelter in its various views, the views would just be generated by the same 3d modeled shelter on the A-1, copied, then placed on a design layer on say a Saved view S-1. I could then rotate the object(shelter) around its x,y.z axis to give the view I want. Duplicate the shelter and rotate again for each view desired. This would be for a set of construction drawing CDs. It's more of a conceptual idea to integrate 3d components where we could even tho we mostly work in 2d without using viewports, especially if the shelter were to be a symbol that may morph as we work ahead. The rationality for this thought is often our equipment configurations are ever changing and maybe working this way would allow us to update views as we are forced to move forward with unknowns, but the office as a whole prefer to stay away from viewports, which I would guess is probably the recommended workflow most would suggest, but you cant blame someone for trying to find a workflow that suites their exact needs. You will have to forgive me. I have high regard for VW and many years working with it. I simply only know what I know, and there is still a lot I don't know about VW!
  8. I understand that 2021 and 2022 can work with the M1. So hence the thought of waiting and going with Apple Silicon. Im not sure the Imac Mini would cut it? Is it not still a shared GPU?
  9. That all sounds pretty promising Pat! One thing Ive often wondered is can I draw some items in 2d and others in 3d? I know the answer is yes, but there is a follow up. Is there a way to then use that 3d geometry on a design layer by rotating it to, say get a front, side view, or Iso on another saved view sheet(wo a viewport)? An example might be a shelter placed in a fenced compound. The site plan is all drawn in 2d. the shelter 3D, but all on the same design layer. The I have another page as a saved view and it has your shelter front top and side views of the shelter, but accomplished thru rotating the object itself not the camera view or viewports per say? Ive toyed with this idea but Im not sure it actually works? I need more VW users in Cleveland! 😐
  10. Im by no means one who understands all of the nuances of hardware but if you wanted a machine that was capable of good modeling and power for a 5-7 year time span on a very small scale what would you go with? I've seen many debates about core utilization as well as GPU vs CPU vs ram and when will Apple and VW unlock multi core use etc. Most of our current machines have moved up to the 32GB of ram and are Imacs with 4-6 cores and decent graphics cards and so on. What are VW 2021,22 and beyond demanding for a good Imac? We also do some Terrain models. Just wondering what factors in more, CPU,GPU or Ram?
  11. Is it possible that these textures are applied to the class, and set to "Use at creation"? I often still struggle with textures with groups & symbols. A group will inaccurately show a class in the object info but once you click into a group or symbol I find its another class? Never understood this. Recently I had a revelation that maybe this is why the none class exist? Create any library symbols on none so you don't bring in any unwanted classes, fills, or textures? There are some things with these items I still get confused with after 15 years. This sounds like that just on a much larger scale.
  12. I hear ya Zoomer, and really just engaging the forum on some down time, its been a while. Imagine trying to model a telecommunications site in 3D. A lattice tower(so many sizes and shapes), extremely hard to model. Mesh fencing with barbed wire, cabinets cable bridges, utility pedestals etc. Its not like a house where VW has pre built tools to pop in windows and doors. It's a utility, that has ever changing cabinets, and antennas that are obsolete in a year(all needing modeled). So if I spend the time to model something it's useless in 6 months. Working in 3D for Construction drawing packages doesn't seem to make sense to me. However; modeling for photo sims and using VPs in that sense its been huge. Maybe the client wants to see how the sleds with antennas look on their building? Camera match and Viewports work great for that. Some might say we're not using the right software or using it in the right manner, I disagree, but maybe Im bias. The fact is there isn't much I haven't been able to do with VW in my 15 years of experience. But for the life of me I can't see modeling a site to generate CD's unless we were doing architecture or modeling a part of sorts. I want to be proven wrong. Just haven't been able to put together a better approach.🤷‍♂️ I wish I was in a city where there was more VW classes and users to interact with!
  13. How does this effect simple 2D linework on a DL? I have not tested in VW2022.
  14. I could live with getting rid of screen play and layer plane. This is often a tuff thing for ppl to get their head around I find. I train a lot of new guys and the ability to draw 2d on a design layer and save those layers as a view makes for easy onboarding. The problem with heavy linked advancements is they often create unnecessary complexity for some where maybe not necessary. When you have jobs that need to be productive and quick and 20 sites a week going out the door, bloated, slow viewport updates, from models and such just don't make a lot of sense. While I'm always searching for efficiency I always go back to the old adage that engineers like to use. KISS. I realize ea. here has a workflow that prob varies vastly from user to user, its VW flexibly to allow all those designers to do things in the best way possible as they see fit. Sometimes thats a complex model, other times its a basic 2D conceptual drawing.
  15. We basically do all our 2d Construction documents in saved views/ top plan on screen plane. I only use layer plane when I plan to model maybe a specific item. While our industry rarely utilizes 3d Models, we are known for providing some of the better ones. I could share a dummy file to give you a better feel for he workflow we have with 2d construction documents. In fact I'd love to engage in some dialogue to have a clear understanding on others methods or feedback on ours. As with any industry much is proprietary so I would have to actually make a dummy file, but that's easy. Drawing a site plan on a design layer allows us to annotate with out jumping in and out of VPs and line weights appear as expected all in the same place. Saved views has simply worked for over a decade and still continues to. I need to find value in drawing a 2D site plan in Sheet views. If I could I suspect these items would have to happen internally on our end... 1. Better classing so that the viewports can be more specifically adjusted for classes. More classes equals more flexibility, but also bloats up the class list. 2. Convincing a team to learn an entirely new approach and understanding viewports, and the aspects of annotation layers vs design layers. Abandon the very small class list we use as a starting pt for every job for a larger list. 3. Coming to a better understanding as to why so often a SLVP looks so different from how it looks on the initial design layer? It feels like this workflow wants to be drawn 1:1 on a DL and then maybe you get predictable line appearance and scale on the VP side? Hatches come to mind here too. Look good in DL space and then in the viewport often scale looks different. These are the most obvious struggles we find.
  16. It sounds like you both use it for modeling? When we compile drawings for our clients they are entirely 2D. We might draw a Civil plan on one layer scale and an enlarged detail on another layer scale but they are both active on the Saved View and that save view is what we publish or print. For example Our title sheet could be a saved view. Then our construction notes could be another saved view. It's been suggested to us to try and work in Sheet views to avoid the need of Panzercad. While I can understand and see the flexibility in Sheet views when truly modeling say a house or building, we work in and industry where right now there is no value to us or the client to model the entire site. There are applications where we model specific fit ups, but our primary line of business is based on 2d still. It's not my preference. In fact quite the opposite. Im always looking for ways to improve our workflow. It's also has to be something that an entire team can get behind. Im kinda mixing 2 topics. The short of it is if we worked in Sheet views we wouldn't need Panzer cad as an intermediary step to convert a saved view package into sheet views. It's also my understanding that working in sheet views removes the need for PanzerCad conversion script. I'm certain we could work in sheet views even drawing in 2D, but the internal argument is why create the extra work? Why deal with viewports if you don't have to or annotation layers and the oddities that happen when scaling line styles. With a model you can change the views, details, and update. Is that still worth something even when drawing in 2d? Many of our details come from cut sheets and we draw them site specific. Others are standard details we have had for years. We work primarily in the Utilities industry, not Architectural, or residential homes, or theatre. However; the firm started with VW and has remained with it for over 15 years. The easy onboarding was a huge selling point. But not having an dwg export option for a saved views workflow is concerning. So I find myself constantly revisiting this topic to see how we can solve the issue. Working in Sheet views doesnt appear to be the answer, but I could be missing something. VW is a vast and large program. After 15 years I still don't use all of its power, but probably the most advanced user we have.
  17. No, Im not saying that. They still work very well! I hope they never become deemed a legacy workflow and get removed is all I'm saying. We used a very nice plugin for years that unfortunately will no longer be supported in the newer version of VW. We were hoping Vectorworks would implement PanzerCad Viewport Plugin for our workflow in future versions, but it seems the plugin is on the shelf for now and no longer viable. We just want a tool that can take a set of saved view CDs and run a script that converts them to useable DWG with viewports, which is what that plugin used to do. It's my understanding that only if you work in the VW workflow of Sheet Views' is a direct export dwg possible. Saved views workflow requires a preliminary step of running the script to create the viewports, and only then can you export as a dwg. We have had clients request we convert 300 sites to usable dwg files. When you have that many to convert the script is the only cost efficient way.
  18. Im thinking 2021 SP5 on Catalina and then Big Sur. Stability is the primary concern. While maintaining function of the Terrain models and their various tools. I have more concern for that more so than CameraMatch for PhotoSim. @Matt Panzerand VW knocked it out of the park with Camera Match. It has helped us win a lot of work. People are always impressed with our sims, so much so we have been getting more and more request annually. I really cant say enough good things about this feature! For those of us still working in saved views(please state if you are!) I really wish we could find a way to batch covert to VPs tho. Maybe we are the only firm still hanging onto ViewPack and working in Saved views? It's so vital to our workflow I hope that of the legacy tools that may sunset, that finding a way to do this for users is critical to VW's success. VW's used to pride itself on flexibility, and I would hate to see the Saved Views workflow sunset. When you have to convert 300 some sites a manual conversion is simply not viable. Maybe if they knew more users used this we could find a better path forward?
  19. Thanks Jeff, Kinda where my head is at as well. Do you use the terrain model feature at all?
  20. We are currently running on Catalina 10.15.7 with VW 2020 SP5. It's been stable and great in all facets that we currently use it in being..... -Camera Match extensively -Terrain model and grading extensively. -Saved view 2d Drawings -ocasionally smaller 3d models in conjunction with Camera Match. With that being said Id love to get some feedback on others who have used 21 AND 22 and how they like one over the other in terms of these features and stability. Also in consideration how do these behave on the different OS for Mac. Is 2021 more stable on Catalina, Big Sur, or Monterey? Were leaning toward the latest version of 2021 to retain certain features that will not work in 2022. Looking forward to some feedback.
  21. I use these occasionally to save time on conceptual designs. The one thing that always struck me as odd is that there is no way to see the cropped area from the original location after the design layer viewport has be created and placed. An example would be a roof plan in which is the parent and the viewport is a detail of something from that parent. If I move the site plan it seems to move the crop with it consequently the area within the DSLVP crop moves. Is there a way I can reposition the initial crop on the roof plan? Or must I start the process all over? The crop from the site plan is never visible again so I find myself having to re crop the area if it moves which kinda kills the efficiency of that workflow. Im curious how others might handle this?
  22. I think that my issue is thru trial and error I have managed to come up with a junk drawer of many files. Ive tried saving notes, details, and 2d top and side plans of components. We work in saved views not sheet views. So everything is essentially 2d Workflow. Most of the office struggles with the idea of the resource library, myself included. They would prefer a blank file with all the components in it that you copy and paste from. The goal I would like to see is to create items on the fly and export them directly to the favorite file. Most of our employees would prefer to have all their parts in another file that they keep open. Not to mention with proper naming convention you could create a searchable DB/library. Id love to see a working example. Sometimes I question if I should make a symbol with the TOP/SIDE/FRONT/BACK views all as one symbol but convert to a group upon import. Or if Separate symbols of each view is better practice. There are the occasional times when Im modeling and I can "replace" one symbol for another if the symbol is maintained on import. That presents some real powerful stuff. 2d components can work the same way. It's often the level of complexity of which file you are actively in thru the resource browser that seems to confuse the masses.
  23. Just seems like a very unintuitive flow. I would expect the exports to show up physically in the favorite file. It always had me question was I using it incorrectly from one flow to the other. Im trying to find a useful way to bring our teams to use these, just seems that for the less tech savvy this is a big ask. When I use it for myself it works great. Its getting a staff of 12-15 to understand the workflow and really decide if both or 1 should be used. Pat Im always happy to get a response from you. I know there are few here who know more regarding this program. Thankful to have you on the forum!
  24. Let me start out by saying I like using the resource browser. Though I find how to set up a library favorite a little quirky. Here is one example. I open a blank file and create all symbols 3d or 2d in that file. Then I reference it thru the RS manager and no problem. The next method is when Im in a working file. Lets say I make a shape that I convert to a symbol. At that time the resource is only in THAT file. However; using the resource browser I can move that symbol over to a Favorites file by just dragging. However; when completing this work flow you don't actually ever see those components in the favorite file if you were to open it physically as a file? So is there a wrong and right way to do this? Why does VW offer the feature of making an on the fly symbol in your local drawing and allow you to export it to a favorite library. But if you were to actually open that library favorite file the physical components wouldn't be seen. They may show in the browser but there is no physical asset? This leads me to believe the best way is to make everything in one file and reference it. Then copy the symbol and physically open the library favorite file and paste it in on the 1:1 scale? Which if it's the latter kinda sucks. Bc I so often find I need to make a symbol and export it to a favorite file. I just want to understand this better. Is this intended to embed symbols in a file and the file really shows nothing or should all symbols be generated within the designated library file and never exported on the fly? The question has plagued me for years.
  25. Well its only working when they send me one format. All the ones listed on their site do not seem to work properly when pulled down. None the less thanks for pointing out the error on my part.
  • Create New...