TiTaNiuM sAMuRai

This should work also in 852, right?

A current project of ours has just moved into working drawing stage, and I was really the only one keeping tabs in VW development; the rest of the office was using 852 for work. For this project, we decided to stick with 852 since I haven't yet had enough opportunity to do reconnaissance on the (un)reliability of 950. Surprises during final plots are not amusing. BUT, I've had absolutely no problem running 852 under OSX -- albeit inside Classic -- so if you enjoy X, stay there, dude.

I would have used it, but I couldn't get used to not having a pick aperture...

... tried has often not been true. Although I often shake my head, wondering if the entire Nemetschek / Diel development team is fewer than a half-dozen people with a couple of buddies to do beta testing, I believe new features and revised interface operation are the result of attempting to appease disgruntled users (that would be the 'WE' bit). Some manners of operation are preferred because different people operate, mentally, different. Consider the verb-noun characteristic of AutoCAD -- a DOS carryover -- as opposed to the make-edit character of MiniCAD -- more a Mac thing, I presume. Some manners of operation, though, are more efficient than others. Plain and simple. Although I, a DOS junky with a fondness for AutoCAD, had to switch to VW on a Mac a year ago, not all I've discovered has been bad. I entered with an open mind but was disappointed with the instability and inflexibility of the Mac and with the unreliability and inconsistency of VectorWorks. BUT (BIG but), a number of things which I originally hated because they changed fundamentally the way I drafted, have proven to be quicker or more convenient. Moral:Change can be good. Can be bad, but can be good. For some things, only time will judge.

I, personally, have noticed iTunes as an app running during VW crashes (osx, though) whereas I normally have no other apps going. Try not running iTunes and see if the problem persists with other applications.

So what is the reason for it?

Thanks. I don't understand, though, why ray-tracing depth would have anything to do with shadows. In a conventional raytracer (e.g. POV-Ray), the depth kicks in only when reflection(s) are involved. Does VW not use this feature in the same manner? I also don't understand why a _directional_ light's position would affect anything. Unless I'm mistaken, even objects behind the light source object are lit, right? As for the hue, I always do use a yellowish tint, and a low-level slightly bluish light from the other direction. Does the shadow softening carry over to printouts? In VW 8.5.2 and 9.5 (b7, I think), there was artifacting along the base of walls. Why is that?

That sounds like a very band-aid-like solution. I hope that Nemetschek is treating it as a bug, either on Nemetschek's end or as a MacOS bug which should be fixed by Apple. Really, orgainizing one's project files structure around is simply unacceptable. Does VW currently have the ability to remove from the reference the path? This would allow one to move the project during or after production and yet maintain the link.

Exporting 3500-pix wide images (both pict and jpg) results in a wonky image file in 9.5 and 9.5.0b7 Exporting to 2000-wide seems to work...

Is there any way to modify the shadow mapping resolution when using RenderWorks? In 8.5.2, the total map appeared to scale itself to the largest element in the scene, so closeups in a big scene would give noticeable soft jaggies. Currently, with two directional light sources, the shadows I have appear quite crisp. Is there any way to change that?

When we were using MiniCAD 7, and Art.lantis 3, there was an additional utility provided by Art.lantis' developer. I haven't yet played around with v4, but perhaps there is again an extra utility...

9.5.0 appears to 'Duplicate Array' in the same way as 8.5.2: If you array an item and enter a number (e.g. 2), you end up with an array of items that totals 3. Either VW9.0.x or one of 9.5's betas changed the linear array to operate in exactly the same fashion as a rectangular array. If you specify 2 rows, you get two rows, not two additional rows. Therefore, if you specified a linear array of 2 items, you got 2 items, not 2 ADDITIONAL items. 9.5.0 has reverted, it seems. Does anyone know if there is a toggle, or was it a feature that was introduced then revoked (or maybe lost)?

Double-clicking in the Resources palette allows the user to edit textures, hatches, record formats, and scripts. Why doesn't double-clicking on a symbol bring up the Edit Symbol dialog?

Now working on clean drawings, I find the most common culprits to be Purge and Revert. I'm the only with this malady, aren't I?...

Um... thank you for the reply. Instead of trying to get VW not to do what I didn't want it to do -- typically tougher than trying to get it to do what I want it to do, I just finished up the presentation graphics in Illustrator. However, I have decided to put more effort into developing useful, powerful scripts...thx for the iduz.

... so if your're importing objects, ensure they all have the fill attribute set to solid, right?

Why can't VW use the indomitable class 'none' as AutoCAD uses Layer 0 when it comes to inserting symbols. In short, a symbol drawn in class 'none' would inherit the object attributes of the class in which it is inserted. Currently, the symbol will only inherit the attributes of the classes in which it is drawn.If you DON'T want this inheritance feature, then simply force the attribs of the objects within the symbol. With this feature, a given symbol can be used for design, presentation, and working drawing purposes, or it can be ported from one set of drawing standards to another without the carry-over of old or foreign class names or colours.

I'm working on drawings that were started from v8 drawings -- template dwgs that were virtually empty -- and am finding that 950 is crashing quite frequently (as often as 852), whereas I recall 950b7 crashing only once or twice. The OS was upgraded from 9.1 to 10.1.x at approximately the same time, so I can't deduce the culprit yet. I'll try some testing on new files, but I was wondering if any others were having similar experiences...

Um... uh... you've definitely put quite a bit of thought into your interface. It would work wonderfully for the way in which you draw, and sounds as though it has quite a bit of potential, if made flexible and modular enough. I started drafting (by hand, then CADD) engineering drawings -- machine, civil, pressure vessels, etc. -- and then moved abruptly, by choice, into architectural training, which included architectural drafting (again, first by hand). Doubtless, many others could attest to the fact that different industries, different companies within an industry, and even different people in the same company under the same company design/drawing/drafting standards, have different requirements. You raise a great point when you mention that the program should give you feedback. Consider a simple feature such as how the program indicates a line has been selected. If you're zoomed in so that the enpoints are out of view, you're simply guessing unless the line is the only thing selected. However, there is one fundamental weakness. The overhead required for this flexibility and modularity would require either skillful software design or a monstrous pile of code (Windows NT, for example, was 80MB when the typical size of a HDD was 200MB). Fill us not with false hopes, ye sayer of sweet things. Is not our torment already enough? Must we, whilst suffering under the yoke of Nemetschek, be reminded of what might have been? I, for one, shall return to my black background, and dream no more of the light...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'appear as though it's in a photograph', unless you mean that the imported picture is masking all your lines and such. We use pictures on a regular basis, and they sit in the stacking order just as all other objects. If you've tried to 'Send To Back' the image, ensure it isn't on a different layer that is above the layer(s) of your other objects.

I understand the no-fill for consistency's sake, but if one is in Plan mode -- not just Top view -- why not fill the 3D faces, as is done with walls?

Giovanni's comments echo my sentiments exactly. However, given the historical accuracy of implementing features in VW, I'd prefer to see the thousands of bugs worked out first.

...sorry... you wanted pdfs, right? Although the ppd doesn't seem to work for direct plotting, it appears to offer all the output options, whether we're outputting to postscript OR pdf.

HP is notorious for poor support of its devices under MacOS. We have a DesignJet 500 PS for which we needed a driver from Microspot in order to work reliably in VW 8.52 under OS9. OSX.1 doesn't list this plotter in its driver list, and the ppd we have still doesn't seem to allow the Print Centre to connect to the plotter. What DOES still work, to some extent, is the output to a postscript file, for large sheets. Only one or two of our workstations are running OSX, while the plotter's terminal is still on OS9. If you have a similar setup, or if you can start up your plotter's computer -- be it a separate machine or not -- in OS9, you can plot to a file in OSX, then plot that file in OS9. HP currently has no plans for supporting a number of its plotters under OSX, but a reply from customer service at Microspot assured me that it would be releasing a number of HP drivers for OSX in January (2002).

Driver conflicts? Getting updated drivers is a good idea since they tend to fix internal bugs, but be wary that new drivers can create conflicts -- new conflicts...