Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Altivec

  1. But if you look even closer and play the movie below the 2 screen shots it shows the tools switching within the same program which means when fully supported by the program you have much more then the static 12 buttons. I am hoping Vectorworks will act like the program in the video at some point in time. Yes of course you can. Former Space Pilots haven't even had a display and you could use them too. It is just for the learning period to have a readable Text instead of showing all 12 Buttons Symbols just "Keystroke SHIF...." Yes... as I mentioned, if the buttons are static and never change, the text display is fine. My issue is if the buttons become dynamic where the buttons are constantly switching based on what tool you are using in the same program (hundreds of tools assigned to the same buttons). This means you will have to constantly read the display to know what tool is activated. Looking at an icon is far quicker then reading. Time and fatigue will add up pretty quickly if you are doing that a thousand times a day.
  2. That's great to hear Jim. I will fire off a quick email to 3dconnexion to see what their plans are for icons on the mac. I'll report back here when I find anything out just in case any other Mac users are interested.
  3. Thanks zoomer, Your description of how it currently works is kind of what I thought. except for "Macros are globally, so they will add 12 times for each App you assign" I am not really sure what you mean by that. When they show the demos on their site it appears the 12 icons change depending on which tool is chosen in the program they are using. So for example, if the wall tool is chosen, I would like to see the upper tool bar icons appear (the 4 line control modes, wall preferences, etc), If I then switch to the polyline tool then the icons would switch to all the vertex modes, etc. As for text labels versus icons. I understand that on the Mac its all text at this point but If icons on the Mac are not in the future, it is a deal breaker for me. Although, some might think what's the difference. I believe there is a big difference between an Icon and text in terms of reading and understanding what the button is. If the button never changes you can get by on text because eventually you memorize the command based on its position (not the text) but if these buttons are constantly changing and all the text on the buttons need to be read each time, I'd rather just use a keyboard shortcut. I know that right now, none of this works that way but I was more asking if Jim knew what the goals were for implementing enterprise in future releases. If what I mentioned above is what they are striving for, I would definitely buy enterprise and be happy to wait as it slowly evolves into what I want.
  4. Those darn targeted ads keep reminding me that I want one of these and I'm starting to break down. Jim, I am not sure if you can answer any of these questions or not. You mentioned in another thread that they are working on making Enterprise work with VW. Do you know if this includes it working on the Mac? 3dconnexion website says they have drivers that work on OSX but with limitations (such as text labels no icon). I think that defeats the purpose of getting enterprise. Do you know if the icons of tools will show up on enterprise? and more specifically on the Mac?
  5. Thanks rDesign... That's good news. If they are working on Enterprise like Jim says, I'll wait until they add that support before I buy. In Canada, Enterprise is over $500. I don't have a problem spending that if everything works as it should but if its problematic like it currently is, it will just make me even more annoyed than I already am with VW. I'll save Jim from reading one of my rants by holding off buying.
  6. I have never tried it in this type of application, and please somebody step in and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this something that would work great with reference files. In other words, have separate files for each unit type and then have a master file where you import all the units into. Again, I'm just thinking out loud so I could be way off base.
  7. I was about to buy one of these but as this thread goes on, I'm getting less and less interested. At first, I was thinking the SpaceMouse Enterprise but then Jim mentioned that the bigger models had issues with Vectorworks. When I checked their site, sure enough vectorworks is not one of the supported programs they list. So then I thought, I'll go to the opposite end of the spectrum and just get the basic space navigator but from what you are telling me, even this is just a hack in vectorworks. If I have to actually think about what I'm doing and have to switch modes just to move around, doesn't it defeat the purpose. Until these things are fully integrated and I am able to not think about navigation, I think I'm going to pass.
  8. I get the programming rational that its easier to this than that so we did it. The problem with that rational is that the user gets fooled into believing VW is something that its not, but that's a whole other discussion. I do dabble in programming so I don't necessarily agree with your view point that improving texture mapping will break current objects. Clearly VW already is storing texture mapping attributes that are stretched and UV mapped on imported objects. Its just they choose not to show or allow us to alter these attributes. Internally this done by having a unique mapping type other than planer, perimeter, etc... This same approach can be used to "not break" current textured objects. For example, instead of changing the current"plane" mapping, introduce a new one called "scalable plane" so only new objects created with this mapping type would be affected. Now. by no means am I implying this is easy or it should be done all at once but the longer they wait the harder it gets. Your suggestion of even being able to map each face independantly would be a million times better than what we have now. that is as long as they allow us to scale the texture independently on XY axis. Expecting us to go into photoshop every time we change the size of an object ever so slightly just isn't working for me anymore.
  9. Just for the record. I never implied that renderworks should do "higher end rendering" I agree that this should be passed on to C4D if like you said the transfer back and forth is rock solid. All I am saying is that the basics (what's already there) should be fixed. Caustics and VR = High end rendering Being able to properly place a texture to an object = basic functionality My point is why waste development time on advanced features such as caustics and VR if presentation or high end rendering is not the direction VW is going. Sure the glass sitting on the table will look amazing but the chair beside it with a patterned fabric looks like something that came from mars because a basic texture can't be applied to it.
  10. Thanks Jim. I know your thoughts are similar to mine in a lot of regards and I know your hands are tied and your mouth gagged (lol, sounding like the wrong kind of forum). I look forward to seeing all these 2.0 tools. In saying that, I think my rant may have been a little premature. My biggest gripe for 20 years has been mapping, so when you kinda alluded to it not only not happening in 2017 but probably not in my life time, I snapped. I also know you are very busy so I will do my best to bite my tongue until the release. Who knows, If I see that a significant portion of development went to getting the basics back up to par as you say, I will end up pleasantly surprised. Then all I have to do is hit "like" button a million times under the new texture mapping improvements Wishlist and I will be a happy camper.
  11. Sorry for the confusion J Lucas... I must have pressed the wrong reply button and the quotes did not get included. I disagreed with Jim's reply to a post I made and Jershaun 100% agreement to that reply. I agree 100% with this statement. Vw shouldn't be trying to reinvent the wheel rather use other software for features they don't have, especially (but not limited to) the software already in their stable. Thanks for your feedback Jim.
  12. Unfortunately, I 100% disagree. I don't think anybody is arguing that Vectorworks has to be able to do anything or everything. I think most are saying quite the opposite actually. Right now it looks like the philosophy is to add new features but as long as they get close to good enough, development stops and they move on to another new feature and the old one gets abandoned. Where as I believe that you make sure what you already have is maintained to be best in class before you develop new features. To be honest. I am not sure if Vectorworks is best in class of anything. If anybody knows of one, I would be really curious to hear what some are. Many of the tools haven't been maintained for over 20 years. For example, look at the handrail tool. Do you really think that anyone doing cutting edge "VR" would use that tool? If the answer is no, why then move on to something like "VR" In my case, I use renderworks because I do presentation work. Although nice, I never asked for caustics and new shaders. All I keep asking for year after year is to "fix" the basics. Although, I really want to use subdivisions, I can't because it is not possible to texture properly. The mapping tools are beyond archaic to the point where free 3D programs are far superior in this regard. This is a perfect example of the almost good enough approach. Surely, when creating the subdivision tools, somebody over there must have tried putting a texture on a model and said oh boy... Do they not know that they are selling renderworks as part of vectorworks. How do they expect us, you know the guys they suckered to pay for this add on to deal with this. I guess the decision must have been, oh well its good enough. NEXT... I just don't get how something like that can be ignored. Telling me to use C4D is a cop out and if that is truly the case, then renderworks should either be killed off or should be free. I use renderworks because my workflow requires quick turn arounds and I have changes flying around several times a day. I have no time to go back and forth between programs. That is why I chose the best workflow that works for me and I PAID for and also PAY for MAINTAINING RENDERWORKS. I understand that its not suppose to be even close to the level of C4D but not being able to independently scale (stretch) a texture on a xy axis in this day and age... Really? Not being able to texture some of the objects you create... Really? But instead of that, l am going to get cool VR. Really? I just don't get the continuous haphazzard choice of development. Again lets learn to crawl before we run. Jim... I just want to add, none of my frustration (and boy am i truly frustrated) is directed towards you. Sometimes, I think you are the only one that has a clue over there (you should get a raise). I really appreciate everything you do and your future plans sound great. I sure hope they work because the powers that be could really use yours and the communities guidance.
  13. 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?
  14. 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.
  15. 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 )
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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?
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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)


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...