Jump to content

Mark Aceto

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    733

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mark Aceto

  1. Posted

    57 minutes ago, line-weight said:

     

    If I understand this right - the problem is that when you join two "round walls" together, meeting at a tangent and so on, hidden line rendering draws a line at the join, where there shouldn't be one (and OpenGL draws it correctly)?

     

    To me, that's a problem with the behaviour of hidden line rendering, rather than with the behaviour of the wall objects as such, if you see what I mean.

     

    I come up against this now and again where hidden line draws a line between wall objects that are supposed to be joined. Sometimes it just won't go away and I have to messily blank it out in vport annotations.

     

    Yes, that’s the issue. I thought I saw a solution somewhere in the forums, tweaking the crease value or something… maybe on a round wall / door post… I’ll keep digging but I think there’s a magic number somewhere that solves it.

  2. Posted · Edited by Mark Aceto

    1 hour ago, line-weight said:

    I think I would probably abandon the wall tool for something like this and do it as a series of extrudes.

     

    But I imagine you want it to be a wall so you can put doors etc in it?

     

    570207949_Screenshot2021-03-05at19_01_25.thumb.jpg.8039a1be1bc1720788d521ac1d8a8821.jpg985334497_Screenshot2021-03-05at19_01_18.thumb.jpg.16b02327fe67b9df4ed566b9596602e3.jpg

     

    You can see the same thing happening with the extrudes where they join. It seems to be an object agnostic global display issue.

  4. Posted · Edited by Mark Aceto

    Right off the bat, if there’s some way to modify the default behavior of creating a new object whenever an arc switches back… be it a polyline or a wall, that’s my solution right there.

     

    Ultimately, what I’m trying to accomplish is a mostly round wall that S-curves (that’s the easy part). The client has spec’d a brushed metal finish that will come off a 5’ wide roll, and the joints / seams should be butted (flush finish; no gap).

     

    Must-have: show where the joints / seams are in Hidden Line view in the drawing set (for both the client and the GC)

     

    Nice-to-have: show the joints / seams in OpenGL

     

    I’ve almost solved it by turning off auto-join wall, starting and stopping each wall at 5’ length along the arc… except for what I mentioned above in the first sentence when the 5’ wide panel is not continuous along the same arc (makes an S-curve):

     

    Screen Shot 2021-03-05 at 10.25.16 AM.png

    • Like 1

  6. Posted · Edited by Mark Aceto

    1 hour ago, Pat Stanford said:

    Can you add the seams in as wall features or decals to get the look you want?

     

    Great suggestions! Mixed results with wall recesses… I would have to make the seams larger than I want to be visible in OpenGL (unless I really pumped up the DPI).

     

    The blue and red arcs are the guides I created to measure 5’ along the curved wall to determine where the seams will be.

     

    Screen Shot 2021-03-05 at 9.22.50 AM.png

     

    However, I’m more concerned with Hidden Line as that’s what will be in the drawing set. How do I hide the lines where the round walls join, so only the wall recesses show?

     

    Screen Shot 2021-03-05 at 9.23.15 AM.png

  7. Posted

    For clarification, using the reshape tool in add vertex mode worked to add the straight line to the polyline. Joining or composing a straight line with a polyline will not work. Trying to convert a joined/composed polyline to NURBS or polygon will not work.

  8. Posted

    My memory is bad. It worked before because I reshaped / added a straight line to the polyline. EAP doesn’t like joining or composing the two lines to create a polyline.

     

    BTW @Pat Stanford I could hear your voice steering me away from the rocks on this one. As much as I’d like to give my client their seams every 5’ along the curved walls, I decided to let VW do what VW does best (wall styles), and take the extruded path of least resistance.

     

    Screen Shot 2021-03-04 at 11.33.37 PM.png

    • Like 1
    • Laugh 1

  9. Posted

    Simplest thing in the world… no longer working. Issue seems to be related to composing a straight line with a polyline to created a new polyline (but it worked fine before this).

     

    Quit and restarted VW. Going to try dumping caches and restarting computer next.

     

    File attached.

     

     

    Screen Shot 2021-03-04 at 10.39.14 PM.png

  10. Posted

    This project has come full circle: I now have a subscription to Cinema, and am exporting the client’s scenic designs from Cinema into a VW shuttle file.

     

    I read that 3DS was recommended but not all of the objects were making it into the the 3DS file. I’m currently testing OBJ which seems to work better.

     

    Many thanks again to everyone in this thread. It’s even more helpful now that I’m using Cinema (even at this very basic newbie level).

  12. Posted

    @Pat Stanford and @P Retondo thanks so much!

     

    Question: after following both of these steps, would it be possible for me to export a custom Fundaments workspace from my copy of VW that they could import?

     

    When we did a screen share, it looked like theirs was all out of wack. No access to Layers in the Nav palette (even from the Menu bar)… I would love to customize it for them by turning on layer scale etc.

     

    I’m also afraid this is headed towards a user folder dump, and I’m really trying to sell them on VW without frustrating them with too much tech support. They’re coming from SketchUp and Cinema.

  13. Posted · Edited by Mark Aceto

    I’m working with a client who has a Fundamentals license. I have a Designer license. When I go to my Fundamentals workspace, are the same features missing for me that are missing for them?

     

    I need to clearly understand what the limitations are on their end for frustration-free collaboration.

     

    Thanks!

     

     

    Screen Shot 2021-02-15 at 1.49.22 PM.png

  15. Posted

    38 minutes ago, Josh Loy said:

    Much appreciated, we'd thought about having "Fit to Page" and "Fit to Objects" apply to all panes when double clicked or to just add more buttons; but waited to see if there would be a large demand before adding more complexity to the UI. As you know we're always trying to find the sweet spot for the best user experience between complexity and usability.

     

    I’m a huge fan of the Option key as a modifier. This may already exist (similar to Space bar panning or mouse wheel flyover) but maybe something like an Option+Command+6 to zoom all panes to extents? And then add a warning like “Do you really want to zoom all panes to extents” (with a checkbox to dismiss future warnings) to minimize calls to Tech Support.

    • Like 2

  16. Posted

    @Josh Loy I was in a user group last week, and a few folks wanted the ability to control all panes (like zoom in / out / to extents). I’m pretty ambivalent about that request (can see it causing confusion) but thought I’d pass it along. Also loving the behind the scenes thinking on this feature, so maybe that’s something y’all wrestled with… 

  17. Posted

    55 minutes ago, Josh Loy said:

    If you're not happy with the default 4 view in new documents, you can lay it out as you'd like and save a new default template document.  I'm not sure how obvious it is but Saved Views are currently apply to the selected pane (blue highlighted one), so creating Saved Views with the visibility options disabled, for each pane, could be used to speed up setting up the layout. (But it's still a little bit of work since you have to select each one and apply)

     

    That’s what I was hoping for—thanks!

     

    56 minutes ago, Josh Loy said:

    do you think adding a "Lock View" or "Disable View Changes" menu checkbox (placed near the "Use Same Visibilities in All Panes" checkbox) which would disable all view changes in that selected pane would satisfy?  I would also think adding an indication that the view is lock in a particular pane would be necessary as well.

     

    Yes—perfect!

     

    57 minutes ago, Josh Loy said:

    We did design a Multiple View Pane Manager but omitted it with the original task to simplify the User Interface.  If you find the current controls too limiting we can definitely look into adding that kind of functionality.

     

    That sounds like another dialog, so I support the original decision to omit adding another layer of friction to the interface. The checkbox menu is still very lean and mean, so there’s plenty of room to add a few more controls there.

    • Like 1

  19. Posted · Edited by Mark Aceto

    On 2/4/2021 at 3:29 AM, Tobias Kern said:

    As for the multiple drawing view:

    The views should not be changeable (or be logged) in the view itself.

     

    In Rhino 3D the front view always stay as a front view,

    the side view as side view, and so on ...

    The perspective view stays as a perspective.

    You only can change this in the settings. 

     

    In VW you could change a orthogonal view to a perspective view

    direct in the drawing window. This is much to easy to change and

    not so a good solution. Rhino does it better (i think!).

     

     

    Rhino is excellent for 3D modeling but I may be misunderstanding what you’re looking for… 

     

    Multiple views in VW are insanely configurable and powerful. Here’s a recent screenshot of when I was testing how far I could take it, and eventually just stopped because it was getting ridiculous. Tearing off the views is one of my favorite features. Likewise, I don’t see any issue with limiting a custom config to only what you need.

     

    Hope that helps!

     

    1037975603_ScreenShot2021-01-30at7_28_44AM.thumb.png.d6766758e7238fcafb2b3becaddb5fc1.png

    • Love 1

  21. Posted · Edited by Mark Aceto

    Hey @Wes Gardner , totally understand the thinking behind that, and it’s certainly great to have the option but the rule of thumb for me has been: only annotate on the SLVP when absolutely necessary.

     

    Without listing a bunch of small specific use cases, there are 2 main reasons:

    • I want to edit one time (on the DL) and have those edits populate in all SLVP’s where I can control them with classes
      • The last thing I want to do is dimension 10 SLVPs, revise the DL with client feedback, and then re-dimension 10 SLVPs (especially if a VP corrupts)
        • I realize that dims and DT’s associate to objects but often times I’m adding a new object or… 
    • Entering the annotation mode is slow, and working on SL’s in general is slow

    That said, I’ll definitely give this new method a shot with various plots and plans to see if this improves my workflow but the idea of switching back and forth between DL and SLVP annotation modes while working with Braceworks doesn’t sound very efficient. Maybe I’ll just edit / enter the Braceworks DL through the SLVP?

     

    Thanks for the tips on the Space Tool. However, there are still cases where I need to use the ST because of the DT's limitations with displaying units, markers, and ability to calculate functions (sometimes literally displaying the function operators vs actually calculating).

     

     

  22. Posted

    First I’m hearing of Data Tags set up to work best on Sheet Layers but that certainly explains their page-based placement. 

     

    Why are they not set up to work on Design Layers like myriad other tags and annotations from the space tool to gird lines / dimensions to label legends... 

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    Imported their latest rev as both a mesh and 3D poly’s. Files look identical pixel for pixel but the 3D poly’s file doubled the size (and took forever to import), so I’m sticking with mesh as the preferred import option for now.

  24. Posted

    Just found this thread. I was surprised to discover that my client’s copy of Fundamentals does not include the Nav Palette. Upgrading doesn’t sound like an option for them right now, and the crippled features (mainly navigating the app) is not a real selling point for them.

     

    Is there really no workaround other than using those drop down menus?

 

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...