line-weight

Member
  • Content count

    387
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Excellent

About line-weight

  • Rank
    Journeyman

Personal Information

  • Location
    London, UK
  1. Doesn't look like it.
  2. I'm interested to know if Energos really works - especially once you deviate from standard wall objects and so on. I've not tried it because - based on nearly all other new VW tools recently - I suspect I'll spend a load of time getting to understand it up to the level where I find that it doesn't work for what I want to do.
  3. Maybe I should have a try using OpenGL for elevations and sections. Plans don't work very well using direct modelling, because drawing conventions for plans use a lot of symbolic elements that a straight slice through the model doesn't know about. It won't give you door swings (even if it's a parametric door object), arrows on stairs, and so on. On the other hand, parametric objects + top/plan view has significant shortcomings and doesn't really work for roof spaces and so on. So, currently my floorplans are produced using a messy bodge of clipped viewports (some sectional some top/plan) plus a load of corrections added in annotations layer.
  4. I know what you mean, I think. One of the consequences of moving to a more 3D-centric drawing process, for me, has been a decline in the quality of the 2D output I produce. I describe a significant part of this problem here: There's not been any comment from anyone from VW and it leaves me wondering - is this even recognised as a legitimite issue? Are these problems even possible for the developers to anticipate, without closely observing people's actual workflows? I know what you mean about feeling like you want to record a day of you working in VW, to send to the development team. On something I was working on last week, for various reasons, instead of producing elevations from a model, I went back to the "old" way, drawing them manually by projecting from the floorplans. Yes it was slow and tedious. But I also felt "in control" again. I had full control over, literally, every single line. The feeling of fighting the system to get output that's something like what you want is not a nice one, especially when it's that output that your clients and others judge you by - the public face, if you like, of your design work. Do the VW developers get to experience that feeling? I think maybe not, because they don't necessarily know when they are producing something that is going to have to be fought. I think that as more of the drawing process becomes "automated", it becomes more and more crucial for the people designing those systems to be very closely aware of the details of how people actually try to use them, out in the wild.
  5. Yes I am. Again, partially based on watching your videos. One of the best investments I've made. Still doesn't work 100% smoothly with VW though (see multiple threads on here)... but I hope more people start using them and things improve.
  6. Ah, didn't know this trick though. Cheers!
  7. Yeah, I do know you can do this. But you can only cut it in one plane, not two, as in the VW image. I also find those design layer section viewports rather unstable. One minute they are there and working fine and the next they are mangled or replaced by a blank X or similar.
  8. Attached are some screenshots of a "work in progress" model I'm doing at the moment. I would not have attempted to build something like this, in 3D, in vectorworks, a couple of years ago. I'm glad now, though that I put the time into getting my head around using vectorworks in 3D. This is partly inspired by many of your videos, digitalcarbon. I now use it in quite a similar way to what you show, and am finding it very useful as a design tool. Absolutely nothing in this model is a parametric object - it's all modelled from scratch. Like I say it's a great as a design tool, especially for tricky, complicated stuff with a lot going on in 3D. The problems come in trying to translate all the info in this model into conventional drawings. As it happens, this project is not a normal one because it's my own house and I'll be doing the building work. So I don't need to make it into formal plans and sections. But even translating it into plans/sections for my own use is frustrating. For some things, working it out in 2D is still teh best way. For example the geometry of those slightly complicated stairs. But can I easily produce a plan section from the model, that I can then trace in 2D? No I can not. The clip cube is nice but can I take dimensions off the sections it produces? No I can not. So, to check a headroom here or there I need to manually make a section using a clunky viewport system, and scale off that. And sorting out all these kinds of things, in my opinion, is more important than introducing new tools.
  9. I've watched those two videos you posted, and in principle I do agree with much of what you're saying. I think everything you're saying is true working at a certain level of detail. However, at least in architecture, we are often working at a mix of very different scales. Sometimes I might be worrying about a 1:5 detail to do with how a window frame meets an insulation layer, sometimes I might be doing some floorplans for a feasibility study which need to basically work but which will not be presented at greater than 1:200 scale. At 1:200 or 1:100 scale I think parametric windows, stairs and doors make lots of sense. It doesn't matter if the window in the model is not exactly the same as the particular system that will be used in the end. I probably won't even know at that stage what the eventual window product will be. As long as it's approximately right in terms of frame style and so on, it doesn't matter. Same for stairs - doesn't matter if the railings aren't quite how I want them. What does matter is making sure they basically work - in terms of tread sizes, floor to floor height, headroom and so on. Parametric stairs, even the highly imperfect ones in VW, save me lots of time compared to what I use to have to so, working out all this stuff manually and constantly cross checking between plan and section. Since I've started doing things in 3D a lot more, I've found that I tend to use the parametric tools at the start of a design and then they often get replaced with direct-modelled components as the level of detail progresses (say, 1:50 and beyond). Sometimes they'll survive to the final level of detail, if they happen to be able to generate what I want, or if they represent a non-critical part of the design (for example, windows in an existing part of a building that's not going to be altered). But largely I find that very few survive to the final level of detail. Now, you may say that my talk of 1:200 and 1:100 and 1:5 is irrelevant in the "new IM paradigm" you imagine, and you might be right, but I think that paradigm is going to be a long time coming, especially in the building industry. It's not just about the drawing software but the way projects and contracts are run and those things have a lot of inertia. I'd love us to get to a point where I build the model and others "harvest" the data... but I doubt we're going to get there in my lifetime (I would be please to be proved wrong). The step between producing the design, and making it into paper sheets that communicate it, is crucial, and the way I see it, VW currently has some big problems facilitating this. It's set up for a 2D workflow, which works well. It's also got some pretty good 3D modelling capabilities, as your videos showcase - but making those models into conventional 2D drawings is a weak point. I've made posts about this in other threads so won't go on about it. I agree with Christiaan - parametric objects are useful, and so is direct modelling. The flexibility to use a bit of both is good. A lot of problems seem to arise when trying to use both in the same drawings. Too much of the parametric stuff, as well as the way top/plan works, originates in 2D world. By the way, your point about the time taken to direct-model something being time that you might need to understand it anyway is a very good one. It goes back to what might be seen as old-fashoined ideas about the importance of being able to draw well - because if you can't draw something you won't ever really understand it.
  10. here's one as an example (from VW2017 web page)... if only it were simple or even possible to create an annotated cutaway perspective section like this in VW.
  11. The general message here should be that parametric tools are only any good if they can cover (within reason) all possibilities. For me, window, door and stair tools are the three potentially most useful ones, because in each case they can save a *lot* of drawing time. I do use them a bit but they all have too many limitations, and too often I have to revert to drawing a window or stair manually because the tools can't produce what I need. And then things like schedule automation start to break down. Make doors, windows, stairs work really well. Then, and only then, move onto developing new parametric objects.
  12. Agree with all the above. I think we need a way of making custom panel types too, ideally. The only way to reliably cover all possibilities. We define a frame sectional geometry, and panel geometry, as we wish. Somehow.
  13. Yes! This would need a lot of careful thought and consultation to make sure it actually ends up with something useful though. There are various different ways of setting up door/window schedules according to size of job and number of repeated elements. For example, on a small job with lots of bespoke doors and windows which are all different, I might have a table-type schedule, text only, listing each door along with ironmongery spec and so on, with the doors/windows shown in elevation within the main drawings. On the other hand on a bigger job with system windows and repeated elements, I might have something like what's shown above, supplemented by an ironmongery schedule by "type" rather than door number.
  14. Design layer viewports are a bit of a mess. I want to have the same rendering/display options for design layer viewports as we have for sheet layer viewports. For example, I'd like to be able to have a plan-view (ie horizontal) section viewport that I can choose to set up as hidden line rendering and then trace off in 2D. Not currently possible. It's sort of possible with a vertical section using the "flatten" tickbox but there are problems with that eg turning off surface hatches, as raised in another thread. Everyone's life would be easier if DLVPs and SLVPs had the same way of controlling display settings. Even when working primarily in 3D there are occasions when the best way to draw something or work something out is to extract some 2d geometry and work on that.