Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Great

1 Follower

About axhake

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    CAD & Data Manager
  • Location
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

930 profile views
  1. Yes, walls, slabs... and all normal architectural elements. Always have problems when mesh objects are present in the file, thus try and convert to generic solids if possible. I normally have two models open when doing any serious modelling, one where i will model the elements, then when happy will copy and past in place in the clean file and convert to solid, if need to change i go back into the other model and make adjustments and then copy into the other model. I have found that if I'm having problems just selecting objects and Cut, then past in place back into the file sorts some things out.
  2. Hi @line-weight, cant say I have had the same problem, I'm using VW2021 and not experienced this problem. One thing you could check is try changing you snap settings and see if that makes any difference. A little trick regarding BimObjects, they do tend to be over modelled, just like in your example of the server unit case, most people who download only want to see the external shape and do not care to much about what's inside however some people just like modelling and we end up with Bimobjects that come in really bloated. Add onto that they come in as mesh objects. Here is the trick... download your BimObjhect into a blank file, select the object and ... convert to "MESH"... then with it selected convert to "Generic Solid" and see what you get 😀
  3. Agreed, show/hide is lightweight and works. I'm from the old days of UNIX where the philosophy was one tool to do one task, worked flawlessly, the more complex you make something the more chances something will go wrong! I was thinking "named selection sets" would be it's own tool, Bentley applications have something similar and like show/hide I find it invaluable when working on complex models. Having the capability of recalling a selection set of selected items can speedup one's workflow.
  4. What would be even better would be "named selection sets", much more powerful and flexible. Having the capability to selecting several graphical elements and then to save that selection set for future use.
  5. cant say I have found any problems with the scripts, they perform as intended,
  6. Revit, Microstation/AECOsim, AutoCAD... they have all added this functionality to show/hide over the last several years, it's invaluable when modelling complex models
  7. @Pat Stanford what about the "show / hide" scripts found in one of you older posts? Still don't understand why this functionality hasn't been added to VW as part of the main tool set, most other CAD/BIM software have added this capability which is invaluable for situations like this.
  8. Still dreaming... sorry forgot... I'm using AECOsim at the moment
  9. Yes, it would be nice to have "Rhino.Inside for Vectorworks" but as we can't even import / export the latest Rhino file format (which is now at v7) we need that updating before we can dream of having "Rhino inside"...
  10. "Do you feel you understand sufficiently the maths behind the way NURBS curves are constructed, to say that in theory (assuming all the profiles are perpendicular etc) the NURBS should all be exactly parallel?" You have to remember that curves are represented as length of short lines (faceted), some applications use smaller facets to represent smoother curves. The mathematic behind NURBS and transitions is complicated to answer the question but if the NURBS curve is simple and fairly flat then YES they should be parallel. Where the curve is more complicated is can be mathematic as close as possible, see the example below. Where the curve is tighter and we try and offset we get to a point where the facets fold over, some applications will draw it like this, others will throw up and error and wont complete the action. sometimes the application will see this and remove the fold at this point in this area it can no longer be exactly parallel. It's more complicated than this but I hope this make some sense.
  11. "I have been too lazy to try this for myself out before typing this post... but suspect it's something you've already gone into" Over several months I think I have a flat spot on the side of my head where I have been hitting it against a wall figuring this out and coming up with a workflow that works.
  12. Doesn't matter how you create your first path NURBS curve to make it look right. Once you have it then split (based on previous example, in the middle and then in half again so you are left with 4 paths), your only interested in the ends of each NURBS curve. Now place your profiles (using your workflow as above) at the 5 locations. Delete your original paths and recreate them with interpolation mode passing through each of your profiles. split each path at the profile locations and rebuild............ Until VW give NURBS some love and attention this is the best we can do
  13. Looks like you are getting into this now. "am I right in saying that all of those NURBS parts I've drawn are not necessarily exactly parallel?" They should be, there are two ways to check this: a) Copy your profiles and paths and change one end profile to a NURBS, then select that profile and one of the paths, using "Extrude along a path" create the extrude. Now go to the other end, switch to Wireframe and see if the extrude aligns with your end profile. If you have accurately placed your start and end profiles it will align, if not they wont. b) For a 2D path switch to Top/Top Plan View and using the "Offset Tool" select one of the paths and offset, zoom into the end of the offset line and see if it aligns with the profile. If it does then the profile is perpendicular, if not use the rotate command and rotate the profile (Note: this only works with a path that is 2D) As you hadn't left the paths in your file I recreated your profile and created paths between them. moved the path and replaced the profile on the ends using the workflow to align the profile to end of paths as in my video and checked, all aligned OK so we know that the profiles have been placed square to the ends of the path ☺️ Checked both methods as above and all aligned OK. I then run my network to re-create each NURBS between profiles with 30 points. Switch to 3D View and changes display to "Polygon > Shaded" far easier to see what's happening. Then measured each crease line, I get 688 - 689 consistently so there is a very small rounding error., try setting your units to one decimal place and see what the numbers you get. The rounding error using this workflow are far smaller than if you were to just use extrude along a path or loft. Now, if you go back to your original profiles copy them, place a NURBS curve through the same corner of each profile, then using the "Split Tool" split the path at the middle profile, then split the two NURBS in half again so that you are left with 4 path lengths. Place a copy of the profile at the new end locations so that you have 5 profiles. Add additional paths to the other corners as before, split these at the profile locations. Select all 16 path NURBS curves and rebuild them. Follow the workflow you have been using and then check the length of each as above.... the accuracy should improve. I am now getting 689 - 690. So form this we can assume the more profiles used to form the shape we are trying to model the more accurate the final geometry will be.
  14. Hi, will have a look at this and get back to you ASAP.


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...