DavidRoy

I concur with Cory’s sentiment here. In my experience the quality of these training sessions has varied and the few I’ve been involved in addressed only basics of how nemetscheck expects the program to operate, with little to no accommodation for the difficulties that are faced by actual users operating on a day to day basis. Those experiences turned me off of investing another $150-500 in “training” I may or may not need, since it’s difficult for me to ascertain the content of said training to judge whether or not it will be useful at any price, let alone the premium.

Can you clarify: from Vectorworks, what file type does the "Send to Vision" command use, and is it the preferred file type?

Thank you! Glad to know this has been read and being processed, and that a couple of these suggestions were already implemented. I'm not familiar with the MVR file export; as I've always shuttled data with the "Send to Vision" command. I'll download the SP3 and check it out. -David

Also interested....I just made a rather large post on Saturday that this would help to address.

Dealing with conventional units in Vision is cumbersome and time consuming, to say the least. Perhaps there are things I'm missing, but here are the troubles I have: Using the software console to focus instruments is great!! However, some fixtures in the vision library are missing required parameters. (for example a 1k fresnel can spot/flood, but not a 650 fresnel). Also; If you have selected a range of instruments, changes in the software console do not change all selected instruments, only the first instrument in the list. I would expect at worst all fixtures would jump to the parameter position selected in the console, but at best all fixtures would respond to changes in the software console as a modification of whatever their existing state is. For example I could grad 4 fresnels, one spot one flood and two mid range, and drag the spot flood control in the software console to flood out all units or spot down all units proportionally with their existing state as the start point for the modification. Similarly, it's very tedious to focus conventional instruments. Yes "focus instruments here" command is useful in getting individual units close, but the vast majority of conventional instruments are utilized as systems in our industry. Both Vectorworks and Vision are surprisingly ill equipped to deal with this. For example if I have a system of 20 lights, it's most likely that I've laid them out such that they should all be tilted at 35º and panned 15º (or whatever suits the design). To do this in Vectorworks and export to vision I need to double the work by making a FP for every single unit and individually assign those units to those FP. In vision, I can select a range of units and choose the "focus instruments here" command, but what I actually want is to grab all units and tilt them up in unison, pan them to the left in unison, etc. Navigating through the units to manually use arrow keys to focus the units is also tedious, as Vision does not recognize repeating keys; requiring me to mash the up and left arrow keys 50 times each FOR EACH UNIT to get to my desired goal. Complicating all of this, if I take the time to focus my units manually and discover a change that needs to be made in Vectorworks, I'll lose all those settings when I re-export from Vectorworks. Yes I could save the scene, separate our layers, export just the changes from VWX and import just those changes to Vision, but that is extraordinarily tedious to manage on a user basis. The "send to vision" command is great in VWX; we need some way to either make that communication bi directional or to store these manual changes and re-apply them to a new export. Ladies; Gentleman....there's got to be a better way. What am I missing? And if I'm not missing something here....PLEASE let's take this thread as a feature request. We've got to be able to let the computers computer here, as the current situation is massively labor intensive to the point that it's just not worth it for me to do it myself unless it's a labor of love. I certainly can't charge a client for the hours of time it would take to make renderings in this manner. Some suggestions: Pan+Tilt could be added to software console Software console could affect all selected lights simultaneously Vision could accept repeating keys for focus changes Duplicate unit profiles could be made that give P+T+Electrician human console parameters, which would allow me to patch some dummy channels to control these items in the console and thus preserve focus changes through drawing changes, since the data is being stored in the lighting console and sent to vision via dmx. Bi-directional communication between VWX+ESP to allow manual changes to be preserved, streamlining the creative process and preventing duplicate work. OR: Manual focus data stored so it can be re-applied to new exports. How else can this problem be solved? Has it been solved somewhere and I'm just missing it? Thanks Late 2015 iMac Quad Core i7 4Ghz AMD Radeon R9 M395X 4GB 32 GB Ram MacOS Mojave VWX+Vision 2019 with all current updates as of posting.

I've noticed a new problem come up in the past couple months that the upgrade to VW2014 may or may not have compounded. My Studio is setup to share files across dropbox. When we first started doing this, we could reference files via relative file path, and the files would open correctly on any machine connected to the dropbox. Recently, VW gives me an error that it can't find the referenced files every time I open, and I have to redirect it to the files in question. I've triple checked all of the references and they are setup correctly - some of them cache, some don't (depending on the needs of the project), some of them update class definitions of referenced symbols and some don't (again-depending on the needs), and ALL of them are set to RELATIVE file path instead of absolute, ostensibly to prevent this problem from happening. Anyone else have similar issues? Have any ideas about how to solve it? Is this a change in the way dropbox works, or a bug that's crept into VW development somewhere?

@Vincent: Sorry I was unclear. I was in fact on SP3 when I started experiencing the issue. @Jonathan: YES: Gunther contacted me yesterday in response to the bug submit and mentioned the resource browser connection. The known issue is that having the resource browser closed on application launch can cause one core of a CPU to max out. I'm unfortunately away from my laptop and haven't been able to test this out. I can confirm that on my 2.8Ghz Core i7 iMac (Late 2009) I don't have this issue, regardless of the state of the resource browser. I'll test out on the laptop as soon as I get back to it and report results here. I should add - both machines have 90% similar software installed, and have all current OS and VW updates applied as of April 17th 2013.

YES. YES. YES. It's awful. and on my laptop, extremely noisy (since a processor stuck at full heats up and that triggers the fans to go to VTOL mode) and RUINs the battery. EDIT: After much googling, have not found a solution. Submitted a bug report, since it happens on application launch every time. May end up removing program and reinstalling service pack 1. Apart from being a general nuisance, having one core constantly at 100% will decrease the effective life of my computer due to excessive thermal wear and tear and excess battery cycles.