Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VvierA

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. @hippothamus Thank you so much. I'll try that.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Very strange: If I try to 'SetView(0,0,30,1,1,1)' nothing happens. If I try 'SetView(0,0.001,30,1,1,1)' it works. Can anybody explain? Why isn't it possible to just rotate the z-axis? VvierA
  13. Studied the example but didn't find any clue yet. Any other suggestions?
  14. Hello, I made a PIO with a symbol inside. When I activate the PIO in the drawing there is ONE modification point so that the symbol can be moved individually and independently from the PIO itself. That's nice, but I'd like to have more modification points around the symbol, i.e. a bounding box or something like that. Can anybody give me a hint in which direction to research? VvierA
  15. Hi everybode, finally I succeeded to make my auto level plugin but there ist still some challenge. How can I determine the stacking of the object inside a PIO? Well I know I could change the order that the objects are generated but I don't want to do that. I'd simply like to send the last object to the back. I guess that's not too difficult but I didn't find it yet. VvierA
  16. Solved the problem. Checked for the position of the viewport and computed it with the position of the PIO inside the viewport. This way I get the position of the PIO relative to the internal origin (I hope - I'm not sure, but it works.).
  17. Ok thank you. I programmed a loop and checked the types of the parents. If it's a viewport I get the scale with GetObjectVariableReal(hVP, 1003). But how do I get the scale of the Layer where the PIO is nested? May I use Act_Scale := GetLScale (ActLayer); if I determinded that the upper most parent is a layer or is there another way to get the scale of the layer (for example another Object Variable)?
  18. Still desperate. I tested every thing I imagined but no help. I'm still looking to get the position of an PIO in relation to the internal origin or rather in relation to the underlying design layer. So that the position remains the same, even if the viewport is moved. Alternatively I am trying to get the position of a viewport in relation to the internal origin. So I could calculate the position of my PIO in relation to the internal origin. Any help? VvierA
  19. Thank you Matt. The strange thing is: I used this to get the top parent of a PIO in a viewport annotation and the result is 11 (group). The next parent is type 0. Very strange, isn't it.
  20. Thank you. I studied the article - very interesting but there is no obvious solution. Maybe somebody knows the answer and in the meantime I will do some tests. Maybe I find the solution.
  21. Ok thank you for the warning. Do you know a simple routine on how to go backwards checking the parents until I reach the 'end' of the parents? How do I know how many parents an object has? VvierA
  22. Well, concerning the rotation, I check for the rotation angle of the PIO. If it's rotated every element gets rotated individually. That's not so elegant but it was easier for me to implement. Thank you again, VvierA


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...