VvierA

@Miguel Very cool. Thank you so much for the work. I hope I can do the rest for myself and don't have to bother you anymore. All the best

Hi, did you solve the problem? I am interested too.

@hippothamus Thanks - a good trick to get the search string. Isn't it possible, to use such a search string in Vectorscript to get the handle to an object I am looking for globally in the drawing?

@hippothamus Thank you so much for the input. I just found this: and thought, that maybe there is some way to use the search criteria to simply get the handle to my object. Even if VW does the loop in the background I would be more convenient, because I wouldn't need to worry about how to program the loop and make it safe for any cases (for example: user abort or very large drawings with thousands of elements etc.).

Thank you hippothamus, but is the loop really the only way? I'm not so happy about it, because loops are rather slow - I was hoping that Vectorworks could identify directly the object with the record 'Billy'. I was hoping, that this is possible, because when you generate a list of records with a table in VW you can easily identify the referring object in the drawing by right-clicking the table entry. So Vectorworks seems to be able to 'find' objects with a record. Thanks for further help, VvierA

Hi there, with your help I have an idea, how to solve this problem... but now there is the next problem: Let's say I've an Object and the object is linked to a database. Let's say the object has a record, for example the text record 'Billy'. How do I get a handle to the object by using the record 'Billy'? Thanks for any help VvierA

@Miguel Thank you very very much. That sounds good. I'll try to attach a record with the ID to the rectangle and the same ID with as suffix to the symbol to bind them together. By selecting one of the two objects I hope I can get access to the other one using the ID.

@MullinRJ Thank you. I thought about using an ID to link two objects together. But the downside is, that I do not know how to build an algorithm to generate and maintain unique IDs within Vectorscript. So I'd prefer a built-in routine to link to elements - if such a routine exists.

@Vincent C I need a logic link. Just to get a handle for the other object. Grouping them means that, they 'stick' together which is not what I want. @hippothamus I already thought about using the name. But I don't want to do that, because of two issues: - I'd need to program an auto-name routine within my script. - I don't want to 'waste' the object name for my linking purposes. My aim is the following: I'd like to link symbol instances to polygons. The symbol instance would be part of a PIO and retrieves information from the linked polygon, for example the area or the perimeter. I already made something very similar: it's a PIO with a symbol that merges with the polygon. It works, but the downside is, that moving the symbol within the PIO is clumsy. So I'd like a symbol (or PIO with a symbol) that's geometrically independent from the linked polygon.

Hello, I'd like to write a script to link to objects to one another. For example associate a symbol to a rectangle. The purpose is to get a handle to the other object, when modifying the other. Is there a way? Thanks for any help, VvierA P.S. I already found 'AddAssociation' but this doesn't seem to give me a handle. It just links to objects so that one element is deleted/ reset if the other one is deleted/ reset.

I don't like scaling for design layers. I'd love to draw everything with scaling set to 1:1 and make everything else with viewports in layout layers. But that's not possible. Vectorworks urges you to set the design layer scale to the scale you might want to use for the viewports later on. It urges you, because many of the labeling and dimension tools don't work properly within viewports (for example associative dims). So you have to do the dims and labeling in the design layer and for proper scaling of the text you need to set specific design layer scale. I'd like to see some sort of preview for design layers to control line weight and hatch scaling for certain scales and I'd like to see all dim and labelling tools to work properly in sheet layer viewports.

Yeah, but why do you use separat scaling of layers? I assume, because it is currently the best way to get your work done. But probably there were other ways that were even more efficient. Nobody likes Nemetschek to disable design layer scaling without taking care of the need of customers who do use layer scaling. The weird thing about layer scaling is: you set a certain scale for a building model that is actually meant to be used for plans and drawings with a whole bunch of scales.

Maybe I didn't get the concept of the layer scales correctly. Isn't it the right way to draw a detail in layer scale 1:5 and the section of the building in 1:50? If I would use the same scale for both I would not be able to: - control line weight - control hatch scale - label, dim and annotate in the design layer Not to be misunderstood: I'd love to use one scale and I'd love to label dim an annotate on the sheet layer. But to do that I need some sort of 'display zoom' for hatches and ALL annotation tools should work correctly with all features in the 'annotations' of a viewport on a sheet layer. Well, as I said before, for example associative dimensioning or the room tool do not work correctly but within the design layers. So if I need to use them I need to set the layer scale.

Just one example with design layer scaling that is - from my point of view - very annoying. Let's say you draw a section of a building, scale 1:50. Then you like to make a detail of the eave in 1:5. If you use layer scaling you cannot snap to the geometry of the 1:50 section while drawing the detail in 1:5. So let's keep design layer scaling for backward compatibility but please also enable the option to consistently draw at scale 1:1. This includes 'auto-lineweight' and 'auto-hatch-scale' and the complete range of dims, labels and annotations on sheet-layer viewports.

I think the solution would be to.... ...consistently enable working with one scale within all design layers and to enable to make all annotations in the sheet layer. So it would be possible to make a very clean separation between the (BIM) model and the output. With that enabled Nemetschek may keep Design Layer scale for backward compatibility and special purposes.

Output to specified paper sizes is something everybody needs. Sheet layers are the best way to do that. Do you also print from within the design layer or do you just like to visually control while drawing? I'm just curious - do you use sheet layer at all? It doesn't work yet because Vectorworks is not supporting this by now. Unfortunately this doesn't work yet because Vectorworks doesn't support this consistently.

In former times (before sheet layers were introduced) the scale settings for design layers were needed to print several scales on one plan. Since we have sheet layers (and even viewports for design layers) we don't need scale settings for design layers. With the BIM concept: Does it really make sense to build the model of a building with a certain scale setting for example 1:50 if I'd like to generate drawings with lots of different scales? I don't think so. Instead I'd like to see, that all annotation and labelling tools get to work properly within the 'annotation space' of a viewport. With that I can keep the design layer clean of any text, labelling or annotation. I won't need several classes for the annotation in several scales or plans. Everything concerning the model would be part of the design layer and everything concerning the output would be part of the sheet layers. VvierA

@hippothamus Thank you so much. I'll try that.

Thank you both hippothamus and JBenghiat. May I ask for some more help. Can you give me so hints on how to assign the glass directly to the polyline inside the PIO but not the object itself? VvierA

Well maybe I found a clue in the right direction but I am not able yet to figure out the solution... So here is what I found: It appears to me, that the 2D path object is affected twice by the opacity attributes of its class. Once directly - as a filled polygon that's part of a class with a transparency. And then secondly - as a PIO that's part of a class with a transparency. But as I sad - I have no idea yet how to solve that problem. Maybe anyone can help? VvierA

Hello everybody, recently I made a 2D path object with this nice piece of script (see below), found at www.vectorlab.info: http://www.vectorlab.info/index.php?title=Path_obj_with_2D_Reshape_on_double-click&redirect=no Everything works fine except one thing: If I draw my 2D object in a class with transparency (opacity) of 70% or lower, the object is much more transparent than any object I draw with another tool (i.e. rectangle, polygon etc.). If I change the opacity of the class to 100% you can see no difference in opacity between the custom made 2D object and any standard rectangle. But the lower the opacity of the class is, the more difference is visible. Can anybody help me to make sure that my custom PIO uses exactly the very same opacity that is set for it's class? Thanks for any help VvierA

It's difficult to describe, because I am not a native english speaker and my user interface is not english but I try to translate: The 'standard tool palette' contains both tools to create an tools to manipulate objects. I think it would be more compelling to distinguish between the two kinds. When you select a tool some options appear on the top left of the screen. These options do not differentiate grafically from tools. They just look like a new row of tools with tiny separator lines between them. They appear under the title bar of the main window under a row of other 'elements' and it looks a little bit like 'hey, where do we have some place on the screen for these guys - yes, let's create a second row under the title bar. they are important, so why not move them to the left.' I think it would be nice to find a more dedicated place for them and to change their graphic appearance. To minimize cursor movements it would be nice to have them as some contextual popup palette so they are always near the cursor. In the same row under the title bar on the left there are some 'program options'. Because of their graphic appearance they also look like some tools but they are a colorful mixture of settings. Some refer to visual settings for the main screen, others are more basic settings like autosave etc. The info and the attribute palette In my opinion the distinction between the info and the attribute palette is strange. When I draw a line the line has several attributes like color, thickness, layer, class etc. Why are these attributes spread over two palettes? General: In the mac version all palettes are free and lose and it is not possible to arrange them permanently into one compact workspace without having gaps between the palettes. The navigation in the accessory-palette is annoying and confusing. And it's difficult to move symbols from one folder to another. For me the problem seems to be, that the GUI was made decades earlier, when there were only a fraction of tools and options and the software was much smaller. Since then every tool and option was just added somewhere as another tiny 'tool' icon without order or structure. You may say, that every user can customize the User interface but this means only that the user can rearrange the cluster of tiny litte icons. Since the concept and power of the software wouldn't be affected by a redesign of the interface I am convinced that power users, that have been working with the software for decades (since the days of minicad) would be able to accommodate very fast. So no experience would be voided and the software would be set up properly for the future.

Apart from any details I would summarize, that the current UI definitely needs a complete redesign. The whole screen is cluttered with icons. Every upgrade brings some new features and tools that are hard to integrate seamlessly in the old interface. So it's hard to perceive which icons are for tools or for options and in which context they should be used. As a result I found that students often only use the most basic tools and never explore the whole potential of the software. Often the distances for the cursor are very long. You can compensate this by using keyboard shortcuts but I know that beginners like to stay with the mouse and the cursor for some time. In my opinion the redesign of the UI should be one of the major concerns for the next upgrade.

No clue?