Jump to content

Mark Aceto

Member
  • Content Count

    637
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mark Aceto


  1. @Wes Gardner would the recommendation be to use the Structural Member tool, the Framing Member tool, or a combination of both?

     

    I'm thinking the SM tool for the vertical and horizontal members, and the FM tool for the diags:

    • I may use the bottom chord for rigging, so the SM object will work great for that
    • FM objects can't go to 90º vert, so SM for the those
    • Even when I turn off auto-join in the SM tool mode, SM objects will still auto join later when I move / reseize them
    • SM tool doesn't seem purpose built for 2x's (I found the Timber styles buried in the settings but it doesn't seem native)
    • SM tool seems purpose built for steel W-Beams to frame out a warehouse (not for a bowstring lumber sandwich)

  2. Tested and confirmed that both conditions need to be met:

    • Pull-back Bar and Rigging Frame objects need to be generic solids
    • Pull-back Bar and Rigging Frame objects cannot be nested in the speaker symbol
      • I'm sure I'm saying that wrong but in layman's terms, they need to be at the top / parent level of the speaker symbol

    Screen Shot 2020-11-14 at 2.45.50 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2020-11-14 at 2.46.38 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2020-11-14 at 2.48.42 PM.png


  3. OK, I sort of figured it out with the exception of the Braceworks caveat. I cut the rigging frames from the nested speaker symbol, exited that Edit view, deleted the remaining 2D geometry, and pasted them in place (at the top level of the symbol along with the pull-back bar). I didn't expect that to work because the manual says all (speaker and bumper) symbols need to be hybrid.

     

    I'm going to test this with converting those objects to 3D only symbols... 

     

    Screen Shot 2020-11-14 at 2.25.23 PM.png


  4. Hey Andy,

     

    That solved the issue with the pull-back bar visibility. However, the rigging frames (already generic solids nested in that symbol) are still only visible at 0 tilt:

     

    77143719_ScreenShot2020-11-14at2_13_14PM.thumb.png.f4adf4b704e6e5da2de85e620338abd8.png

     

    Converting the rigging frame hybrid symbol to a generic solid also loses it's weight which I was hoping to get in a Baceworks-aware calc:

     

    1484804969_ScreenShot2020-11-14at2_11_56PM.thumb.png.3153a19945f73a01d24afc04a5ec6356.png

     

    OpenGL render time was a few seconds on my wimpy MBP:

     

    221892217_ScreenShot2020-11-14at2_13_53PM.thumb.png.f7ac76eeeeee4c462571ae1e6bb5ab6f.png


  5. I'm trying to accomplish 2 things:

    1. Add a Pull-Back bar symbol to the bottom box in the array
    2. Keep the rigging frames that are in the original speaker symbol

    My assumption is that these objects are not visible in the array because they don't have a record attached to them... 

     

    Just trying to get one step closer to this reality:

     

    Screen Shot 2020-11-13 at 12.50.40 PM.png

    554543080_ScreenShot2020-11-13at12_44_06PM.thumb.png.02752f327e7b0a29453f836c34dc7b95.png


  6. Looking for a 3D model of the double and single hang bars. Didn't find any DWG's on their websites... 

     

    I could always roll my own but I like to start with the real deal from the manufacturer before I resort to faking it.

     

    Screen Shot 2020-11-13 at 12.03.53 PM.png


  7. Before I model this bowstring roof truss manually using Structural Member objects (as I've always done in the past), is there a parametric way of creating the entire bowstring roof truss?

     

    I tried the Roof Trusses PIO at: http://www.vectordepot.com/older_plug-ins.html (screenshot attached).

     

    Not a big deal--just curious if anyone has come up with a pro way of doing this. These roofs are pretty common in Los Angeles, so this won't be the last time... 

     

     

    Screen Shot 2020-11-12 at 6.04.49 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2020-11-12 at 6.06.26 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2020-11-12 at 6.45.21 PM.png


  8. @neal-2002 I think you nailed it. The M1 GPU is capable of 2.6 teraflops. The AMD 5600M is capable of 5.6 teraflops (they'll probably match or beat that in the M1X or M2 or whatever they call the chip they stick in the MBP 16" and/or iMac). However, there will be all manner of optimizations for the M1 GPU, so very excited to see some real world benchmarks!

     

    @Don Seidel 100%. That's why I don't think this first round of updates was necessarily mean for us. We're all hanging in there for round two... 

     

    For context, if nothing else, I'm very excited about what the near future holds. I'm just as excited about buying a new Mac every 3 years instead of the insane rumor tracking and sporadic buyer's remorse / resale schedule I've been on for the past 7.

     

    • Like 1

  9. 6 hours ago, rDesign said:

    @JuanP - As it seems to happen every year that a new macOS is released, some users will immediately update to the new macOS as soon as it is released without checking these Vw User Forums first to see if there are any issues that would disrupt their workflow.

     

    I think it would be very proactively useful if the Vw Marketing / Sales department could promptly send out an email to all of the registered Vw users on file letting them know about the issues that have been posted in the Tech Bulletin on macOS Big Sur Compatibility.

     

    I have a few apps that do this for me every year with Apple's releases, and it's greatly appreciated.

     

    Presumably that outreach would also lighten the load of call volume to tech support, and moderating the forums.

    • Like 3

  10. Stray observations:

    • All 3 Mac's that were updated with the M1 were the only Mac's that didn't have a discreet GPU, so the M1 is a huge upgrade of the integrated GPU at the bottom of the lineup
    • The whole point of Mac SoC is that we shouldn't need an eGPU, so hopefully Apple will deliver on that promise hope
    • As RAM is SoC, and therefore not configurable, hopefully Apple won't price gouge on more powerful machines.
      • Same with GPU
      • So far, the new machines are less expensive (albeit with a few caveats)
    • Will RAM or GPU be modular / serviceable / upgradable in Mac Pro?
      • Presumably not in iMac
      • Is the future of iMac Pro finally dead?
    • All 3 Mac's that were updated with the M1 have a max of 2x TB ports
      • 2x TB ports were removed from the MBP 13" and Mac Mini
    • Apple is obsessed with battery life but our laptops are plugged in 90% of the time.
    • The MBP 13" update reminds me of the late-2008 MBP update that introduced the unibody construction. It was missing at least 1x USBA port (now they all are). Then there was a mid-2009 MBP update six months later that brought all the ports back, and ironed out the wrinkles. I expect we'll see a mid-2021 proper update to the MBP 16" and introducing a 14". But with Tim Crook, who knows... 

    My take is that this is round 1 of 3. They started at the bottom, and are working their way up. I don't think these Mac's are meant for us. These are the decoys. Don't take the bait. "These are not the droids we're looking for."

     

    That said, benchmarks are starting to pop up, and the updated MBA and MBP 13" are now the fastest single-core Mac's in the lineup by a country mile (absolutely destroying the previous leaders): https://www.macrumors.com/2020/11/11/m1-macbook-air-first-benchmark/

     

    So if anyone needs a Mac now, and they won't have buyer's remorse 6 months from now when round 2 machines are released... Plus you can get a MBP without a Touch Bar that's faster than the current MBP 16" (for about half the price).

     

    If nothing else, this completely changes my mind about buying the "last best Intel MBP 16". Fingers crossed for an ARM MBP 16" sometime in 2021 before they release macOS 12, so I can run a .3 or later version of Bug Sir. Here comes the Osborne effect... 

     


  11. 10 hours ago, Brent.A said:

    Curious, based on these screenshots and the requests for specific and accurate dimensions....

    Is it common practice to engage all 4 chords on prerig truss with no bracing on the bottom (or top if inverted) face?

     

    You can wrap HUD at the ends without a brace. Anywhere else requires a brace, and placement also depends on whether it's flipped or not. 

     

    Engineering reports for reference:

    I don't have a model of the brace because Tyler hasn't provided a DWG yet: https://tylertruss.com/accessories/gt-plus/

     

    It's definitely at the top of my content request list though 😄

     


  12. @Benson Shaw thanks. That's a streamlined few steps faster than doing 1 edge at a time.

     

    This is my first time using Surface Array, so I'm assuming folks run into this edge limitation often. Unless anyone has a better idea (please!), it seems like the best overall solution is to create the two roof faces to achieve the mitered hip (and components with materials). Then, extract the bottom surfaces to create a surface array grid (the bottom of the hip will result in a conflicted mess of objects overlapping each other). Then, do do what you said to finish the edges. If the client changes the design, I"ll have to start the process all over again... 

     

    As much as I want to keep the objects parametric for easy editing, it seems like basic modeling is the way to go. If anything, I might just use (parametric) structural members for the grid, and manually edit them as necessary (with each revision).

     

    • Like 1

  13. 1 hour ago, markdd said:

     

    Andrew. Maybe an idea for your version of the stage deck tools - The ability to remove the 2D Geometry from the Stage Deck Plug-in objects in the same way as you can for the Truss Objects. This would enable them to be used on Raked stages.

     

    The Draw 3D Only checkbox for the truss symbols would be my dream scenario for LED video screens too (adding the ability to insert 3D symbols of tiles and bumpers) 🙂

     

    Not for nothing but I was able to fake a raked stage aka a "faked" stage 🤣 with the ramp tool but it has to be rectangular (no plugs for wings or thrusts), and the ends have to be vertical instead of tilting with the raked surface. That might actually help me with another project I'm working on... 

     

    141265733_ScreenShot2020-10-26at11_44_57AM.thumb.png.9c24ad55cc0db6ce3698185c79cfa2da.png


  14. 15 minutes ago, C. Andrew Dunning said:

     

    You can add those things to DLVPs already raked but you are correct in that you can't adjust rake for DLVPs containing those objects.  This is not new.

     

    I guess I've just never tried rotating hybrid objects (other than truss, pipe, lights) in a DLVP, CPMV or SV before. I got here for this project because of the limitations of the Surface Array tool:

     

    473030663_ScreenShot2020-10-26at10_22_10AM.thumb.png.de5b8028ecaecfdc23be33ab66ff50a5.png

     

    And you know how I love to use the Landru / stock tools to work around missing functionality. On that note, is there a way to adjust the width of the "trim" of stage plug objects to match the profile of stage deck objects?

     

    1834053708_ScreenShot2020-10-26at10_23_30AM.thumb.png.a3d156365f4e5e11426c6571f30d8c5e.png

     

     

     


  15. 9 minutes ago, C. Andrew Dunning said:

    Now...what does NOT work is fixtures' auto-focusing from within DLVPs.

     

     

    Or Braceworks trim height functionality when moving an entire system hung from motors... 

     

    Speaking of trim height, I can't believe I never noticed this before (sorry, I couldn't resist):

     

    295586548_ScreenShot2020-10-26at10_04_10AM.thumb.png.0337137b6aceb674d5c9e541e5f868a6.png

     

     

 

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...