Jump to content

Altivec

Member
  • Content Count

    173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Altivec

  1. Thanks Jim… Reading between the lines of your response and how the updates have been going the past decade, its kind of what I expected. When I originally chose Vectorworks (minicad at that time) it was due to its strong presentation properties. Over the years, vectorworks has lost its focus. Its now the jack of all trades, master of none. This is exactly why I brought up VR. If the direction is not to be “presentation” oriented, why in the world develop VR. I don’t want to sound rude, but the bland looking textureless VR demo was not impressive to me at all. I would be truly embarrassed to show clients that low level quality of their project and strongly believe it would do more harm than good. We are many years away to where the quality of VR will be even remotely acceptable to present to clients. BUT… I understand you got to start somewhere and I was hoping that vectorworks had a renewed interest in presentation. In order for Vectorworks to be a successful VR presentation tool down the road, the current mapping and animation tools would need to ramp up quickly so that’s why I hoped there would be improvement in 2017. But then you say the direction leans towards pawning these things off to another program. So what kind of VR will this end up being in the future. That lack of seeing the finish line is what makes me bang my head year after year. I am one user, so I understand if the direction is no longer presentation, I should move on to something else that targets that. What bothers me though is that everyone is clamouring to just fix the basic tools you have over and over again, yet resources are being wasted on VR, something that is targeted towards a presentation user such as myself, yet its something that I will never use because Vectorworks is not a presentation tool. Do you get what I am saying?
  2. Hi Jim, A few months ago I was really happy to hear you mention that you guys were taking a new approach of sharing more of the development info with us. But since that initial dump of info there has been nothing. It seems like its back to the old ways of doing things again. Has things officially changed back to the ultra secrecy route? My initial impressions of the first info dump was mixed. I am optimistically impressed with the new resource browser changes, however, as someone that uses vectorworks for presentation, The VR stuff made me bang my head of the desk several times. Not that I think VR is bad, but I hate to see the development resources put into this when the other presentation tools are so archaic. I know you said you guys had hired a bunch of programmers so I am giving them the benefit of doubt that they are improving the other presentation stuff as well. I am hoping that before we get VR, we will be able to get some decent tools to make some simple animations. I tend to think of that as a logical walk before you run approach. But even before walking, I am hoping to crawl first by allowing us to properly map textures to objects. A crazy thought, I know. Is there anything you can share with us in regards to mapping and animation? Even a simple, thumbs up or get your pitch fork ready would help out.
  3. I just want to echo barkest comments. I could care less how easy you make it to use at this point. The biggest thing missing from Sub-D is texturing. period. If I can't texture it, then I can't use it. Once UV mapping is in place (and it better be included in the next update) then yes, allowing us to convert objects to a primitive would simplify things drastically and would be a great addition. Jim, I am glad you changed your mind and no longer believe its a Renderworks issue. Otherwise you would be setting a presidence that its okay if the modules don't work with each other. (eg. its okay that SUB-D would not work if you purchased Architect). All "Paid" modules should have seamless integration. Just so you can see this from a different perspective. I use vectorworks because I require fast integrated rendering. Because I pay more to use Renderworks, I essentially got penalized with less. Those that don't use Renderworks got a cool new Sub-D tool and those that need and use renderworks can't use it. As I have argued numerous times. Mapping improvements better be the first, second, and third thing on the list for Renderworks improvements this year. (Just hinting in case its not )
  4. Thank You sbarrett, your scripts work great and solves my problem. I guess I just have to cool it a bit while I wait for Marionette to mature a little more. Just got excited with the ability to make my own tools. I think a downdown menu input object would be an excellent addition to Marionette 2.0. lol Another one I would like to see for input is mouse click coordinates. I created my fancy tool and turned it into a symbol but no matter where I click, the object gets produced at 0,0. I'm sure there is a way of getting mouse info using python but as you can see, i'm really new to this and although Marionette is easy to learn, python is not. Hopefully the community embraces Marionettes and shares some of these functions with us guys that are still learning. Thanks again.
  5. Nice Try Dave, Its fun learning but I wish I knew it all already. I have all these great ideas but I can't get them to work. Its definitely going to be a long process. I felt I was getting too ambitious for my knowledge level so I scaled back my plans to just get it to work. I thought it was working but its not. This is my simplified script: @Marionette.NodeDefinition class Params(metaclass = Marionette.OrderedClass): this = Marionette.Node( 'PopUp Menu 2' ) this.SetDescription( 'Pop Up Menu for 2 choices' ) out = Marionette.PortOut() k = Marionette.OIPControl( 'PopUp', Marionette.WidgetType.Popup, 1, ['Exterior-Finish', 'Exterior-Finish Detail']) def RunNode(self): self.Params.out.value = self.Params.k.value Although the popup menu shows up with the 2 class selections I want, it does not get passed on to the output. I know this because I have my out connected to the 'styleClass' input of the Set Class marionette object. When I run everything I can see that the object is not taking on the attributes of that class and when I convert the object to group, I see that a class named '0' was applied to those objects, instead of one of my choices in the popup.
  6. Thanks Dave Although I have done scripting before, I do not know python at all. So when I go off the GUI method and go into actual editing of the script, there is a big learning curve on my part. I was able to accomplish what I initially asked for from reading the link you referred me to along with a lot of experimentation. Now that I've done that, I figured I would like to make the marionette object I created more flexible so that it can be used in the GUI for ease of use in other functions as well. What I'm trying to do I believe should be simple to anyone that knows python, but would take me a ton of time to research and figure out. If anyone would be kind enough to steer me in the right direction, it would be greatly appreciated. All I'm trying to do is have the inputs for choice 1 and choice 2 show up in the menu. This is my entire script: @Marionette.NodeDefinition class Params(metaclass = Marionette.OrderedClass): this = Marionette.Node( 'PopUp Menu 2' ) this.SetDescription( 'Pop Up Menu for 2 choices' ) menu1 = Marionette.PortIn( 0 ) menu2 = Marionette.PortIn( 0 ) out = Marionette.PortOut() k = Marionette.OIPControl( 'Popup', Marionette.WidgetType.Popup, 0, [ 'menu1', 'menu2']) def RunNode(self): self.Params.out.value = self.Params.k.value The script works great but obviously what shows up in the pop up menu are the words "menu 1" and "menu 2" instead of the input values. What I am wondering is what syntax I should use to have the inputs show up instead. Sorry for these noob questions which I am sure might annoy some but I'm learning.
  7. I'm loving Marionette. This is an awesome addition to VW Is there a way to have a drop down menu in the OIP where you control what is shown. I want to be able to change classes to certain parts of the geometry but instead of showing hundreds of classes, I just want to have the option to see and pick from only 2 or 3 of them. I was hoping there was a marionette object called Menu, where you can enter a list of strings that I could just attach to the Set Class Object. This seems to be my most missed functionality of Marionettes. I can see many instances where I would want to give a few listed options to pick from in the OIP Does anybody know if there is such functionality that I just can't seem to find or any suggestions for a work around.
  8. Okay thanks Jim. I'll give it a try on one of my files to see if it does correct the camera issues I'm having.
  9. BTW: For quite some time now every time I submit my post, after about 10 seconds I get greeted with a blank page that says: 504 Gateway Time-out The server didn't respond in time. The post does actually submit but the message gives you the impression that it didn't which I'm sure causes people to hit their back button and resubmit.
  10. Jim, I kind of got that from your post and video, however, I don't understand when I'm suppose to do the layer import and from which file. Am I suppost to open my 2015 file in 2016. Open a blank new file, import my layers from the converted 2016 file and then copy and paste objects from that file into the new blank one. or Am I suppose to just create a new file in 2016 and import my layers from my non converted 2015 file. Open the 2015 file in VW2015 and copy and paste object from the 2015 file right into the blank 2016 file. or am I completely not understanding this (which is the option I'm leaning towards) Will any of this fix all my cameras in one shot?
  11. rDesign, Yes I am still having this problem with all of my files that I convert over to 2016. I don't understand what Jim is trying to tell us about "layer Import". Am I suppose to import my layers and classes into a new document and then copy and paste my drawings in there? That sounds illogical and a nightmare. What I did try to do with some success is going into camera view from the viewport and then switch to plan view. Although nothing else shows up, the actual camera does. So I copied the camera and exited. I then went back to my design layers and did an option paste which places the camera in the exact location it was. The only problem with this method is that it does not remember which layers or classes were on or off, so I have to go back and set that up all manually. Once I create a new viewport, the camera appears to be working normally and can be edited thereafter by double clicking the viewport. This is definitely a bug I would like to see fixed. I use a ton of cameras and this is not a fun process that I would like to do every time I import one of my old files.
  12. I had this same problem but fixed it (had to do it with the Heliodon tool too). But I have a new problem related to cameras on a converted v2015 file I'm working on. When I go into my sheet layers and try to edit viewports that are linked to a renderworks camera by double clicking them, I get blankness. It does transport me to the camera view where I can edit the camera settings but nothing in the camera shows up. The correct design layers and classes show that they are active but they don't display. I can switch to plan view and everything is still missing except for the camera itself. If I hit the return to viewport button it does render as if everything is still there.
  13. Thanks for understanding everyone. There is a balance required for posting on boards like these of making the tone serious enough to show your frustration yet not come down as whiney or self righteous. Its hard to know how people will take your post. Like I said I love this software and I am not angry. I’m more so frustrated because the one thing I need never gets fixed and I’m being forced to leave the software I love. Jim, I do have some programming background so I completely understand that the process of choosing what to do next is very complex. its impossible to make everyone happy and I know sometimes what looks simple to users affects a huge code base. I will even go a step further than you and say most people that use Vectorworks don’t do any rendering at all. My problem with this is that you guys decided that Renderworks is a stand alone module. If it were included in fundamentals, I would completely understand that if the majority isn’t using a function then don’t make it a priority. But because Renderworks is a stand alone PAID add on, it should be treated as its own entity. I would think that close to 100% of the people that use renderworks are using it to render. So us people that are paying for it, don’t really care that jane in japan doesn’t own it. We should be treated as the crowd that wants to do rendering and that you are charging us separately for this service. Thanks guys for the tips of exporting/importing in to SketchUp. I never thought of that as a work around and will try it out. But that right there is what’s sad about this and proves my point… People that paid for a professional rendering module need to export their objects into a free noob program to do basic texturing. How can that not be embarrassing to whoever heads the renderworks (not vectorworks) department. This is the equivalent of not having a line tool in fundamentals. If this were the first year I mentioned this, I wouldn’t be as defeated as I am but every year I wait at upgrade time with anticipation that this is the year they clearly understood what a big deal this is. Only to be left with my yearly yell of, ARE YOU KIDDING ME! This is why I say we are going in different directions. If year after year, they can not see how big of a flaw this is to the RENDERWORKS module, then we don’t see eye to eye and its me that must move on. I need to upgrade to something like SketchUP. (just kidding, but in a way not really) Anyways. thanks for putting up with my rant and counselling me. I feel a lot better now that I got that off my chest. I will go back and plug away playing with the awesome new stuff. (Oh BTW. although VW15 was not too bad on stability, this one has so far been rock solid, not one crash yet)
  14. Thanks for the reply Jim, Unfortunately you didn’t get rid of me yet, I am sure its going to be a long process to find and learn new software. Who knows, maybe this is the best it gets and you’re stuck with me. LOL The response that you gave me “many people are not concerned with this” is exactly what I presume the person calling the shots does think and thats why I am banging my head against the wall. I’m sure Vectorworks is different things to different people so its very easy to hide behind that excuse. But, I believe I am a prototypical user for the modules I use which are Architect and Renderworks. I do 2D working drawings and 3d presentations for clients. So for your comment to stick, it all comes down to the question, what is the purpose of this Renderworks thing that I am paying for? Maybe its me that doesn’t understand this product. I believe the sole purpose of it is to create nice presentations, is it not? I also thought Renderworks was C4D’s little brother in terms that they are technically both used to make presenting your work nicer. I’ve tried the dedicated rendering export/import game for over a decade and this time eating process just dose not work with my workflow. This is why I went the Renderworks route instead of going with C4d. I understand I’m giving up on some render quality and features for the sake of production speed. So the question comes back to me, Am I asking too much from Renderworks. To answer that, lets strip this right down to the basics. Isn’t the principal objective of a rendering program to wrap textures around 3d objects? If so, how can it be me that is asking too much. If I were asking for caustics, I could understand a response of, You can get that in C4d, but I’m not, I am asking for the basics? How can the basic principal of texture mapping be so flawed and ignored for so long. To illustrate my point, I was going to try and recreate that red chair you guys have in your marketing material but I didn’t have to go too far in to show what happens. I applied a patterned fabric texture to the object and the image below is what I get and there is no option of controlling anything. This is what you guys deem non concerning acceptable results for the people that are paying good money for a so called rendering package add on. You are telling me that these users are not concerned with having to do everyday work arounds to disguise the textures that cover 99% of their scene like I have to do. They are not concerned with the ability to scale textures independently in x y z directions because they enjoy going into photoshop to re-stretch images like I do. Instead, these people are more concerned with getting that 001% of extra realism with caustics, chromatic aberration, bloom effects, etc… Don’t get me wrong, I love all of these effects too, but at this point, its the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig. All the cool effects in the world are not going to hide that ugly texture job I just showed you. How about spending some time on the animation tools. PRESENTATION in one form or another is a core foundation of this software that almost everyone does. The reason you don’t hear complaints about the current animation tools is that its beyond unusable so nobody uses it. Instead of using resources on Point Cloud which I’m sure the two people that will use it will be ecstatic about don’t you think enabling a new method of PRESENTATION such as functional animation would be used and appreciated by many more users. Anyways, my point of all of this is not to bash the software because most of the program is exceptional. I’ve used this software for decades and I’m very passionate about it. I am hoping that you can pass my message on and that a light in a decision makers head will finally come on, and they will say. I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we fix some of these important basic issues.
  15. I first want to commend the vectorworks team for some amazing stuff in this release. Lots of new stuff that I couldn't even imagine. But: I know everyone is going around saying its missing this and its missing that and I know its not your fault and that you can't answer this any better then you've answered everyone else: For the last decade I've been requesting and waiting update after update for that magical day where we get can some basic functionality in texture mapping. We have all these new fancy ways of modelling and all these cool new effects (which I love by the way) but now lets texture them. Clearly when making your marketing material someone realized holy cow, we can't make a texture look good on these models unless its just a solid color. All I'm asking for is independent x y z scaling found in even the most basic decades old rendering programs. How to this day vectorworks management believes that only having symmetrical scaling on one axis is not archaic is beyond mind boggling to me. Its just not this one feature. To see development in niche things such as point cloud when basic functionality remains in the stone age is very frustrating. As the saying goes, learn to walk before you run. I'm at my wits end requesting these basics and I promised myself if I didn't see improvements in at least one of them in v2016, I would start looking at other alternatives. It just appears VW and me are not going in the same direction and after over 20 years, its time for us to go our separate ways. I truly appreciate you running these boards and I thought that I at least owed you my thoughts.
  16. don't we have refraction already. I was thinking more like Caustics? Maybe...
  17. oops that got filtered... It wasn't that bad of a word. lol
  18. Im guessing its some added parameter dealing with textures. you Jim... you make this tough.
  19. rDesign, I think you are misunderstanding Jim's recommendation. He did not say do a clean install after updating your OS, he said, do not migrate from an old computer to a new computer. I agree with this whole heartedly, not only for VW, but for all software. When ever I get a new machine, I always reinstall my software from scratch. You are just looking for trouble if you use the migration assistant.
  20. Markvi, Something doesn't seem to be working right. Although you are getting soft shadows on your walls, you are not getting them on other objects, specifically your floors. I am not sure if you are free to post your file. If you are, I can take a look at it to see what seems to be wrong.
  21. Markvi, what I assume you mean by soft lighting is the base lighting and not the harsh shadows coming in from the sun. (BTW. some times I keep the sun off) It took me many years to solve the problem you are encountering. Dark and non realistic lighting. I have discussed this issue before with Jim because I believe the way VW labels some of its settings throws people off, well at least it threw me off. The problem is when ever I saw "%" in any light settings, I assumed the range is 1 to 100. That is not the case. You can enter anything in there like 3000%. So if things look dark, just keep upping the percentage. Lighting wise, I treat my isometric floor plans, like my example above, a lot simpler then an interior perspective. The key to doing this is limiting or shutting off my light fixture class so that no point lights are on. I then have a layer that has a Sun on it which like I said is optional. My Sun has these settings. Cast Shadows = On Soft Shadows = On Use Emitter = On Brightness Value = 250 lux Dimmer 100% Then in my lighting options when rendering I have it set like this: Apply Lighting Options = On Indirect Lighting = Normal, 2 Bounces Environment Lighting = None Ambient = On with Brightness of 35% Emitter Brightness = 450% (Adjust this if you find it overall too bright or dark) White Color = Custom Custom (K) 4500 Thats about it, pretty simple. Now if you want to talk about lighting interior shots like below. That's a different animal.
  22. I usually offset my floor plan renderings so it gives the clients a little more depth. I show them two opposite views and they seem to really appreciate it. Like you mentioned, due to changes and the speed that I need to get these things done, everything is done in Vectorworks. (No Photoshoping) If you are interested in how I set things up, just let me know, and I will pass on my settings.
  23. Thank you Benson I guess the key thing that I was missing was the "Use at Creation" in the class menu. Even after turning that on, it did not immediately render but as soon as I went into the symbol and just exited without making any changes it rendered in trim. Its a bit weird that "Use at creation" must be on for trim but not the others. After over 20 years of using VW, I also need to read up on what "Use at creation" does because it definitely does other things that I wasn't aware of. But again, thank you very much, I would have never figured this out on my own.
  24. Sorry about that. I've attached two pictures. They are both rendered with the same settings "fast renderworks". As you can see, when I use "trim" it has the correct shape I want but loses its ability to be solid. When I select "overlap" the solid attribute is retained but it does not trim the tiles like I want.

 

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...