Jump to content

line-weight

Member
  • Content count

    666
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

131 Spectacular

About line-weight

  • Rank
    500 Club

Personal Information

  • Location
    London, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. line-weight

    Annotations PDF output messy and imprecise

    Some more examples, all I wanted to do here was blank out some lines. In the PDF output it looks ok-ish at one zoom level but not at the other (see the faint grey artefacts where the line should be fully blanked out)
  2. line-weight

    Annotations PDF output messy and imprecise

    I'm resuscitating this thread in case anyone can suggest any solutions that might have appeared in the past year. This issue remains one of my top five VW problems at the moment. It's frustrating that it's virtually impossible to create a tidy looking drawing output when generating elevations and sections from a 3d model. The whole process falls at the last hurdle. There also seems to be no acknowledgement from VW that this is a problem, or any suggestions (that I can find) as to how we are supposed to make minor corrections to linework on sheet layer viewports. @JimW ?
  3. line-weight

    to renew or not to renew (that is the question)

    Does that mean waiting for SP3 or SP4 before trying a new version?
  4. I didn't know about these but have just watched a video explaining the Windoor tool. Looks like it would be an improvement on the existing VW one.
  5. line-weight

    to renew or not to renew (that is the question)

    The above makes sense where you have two options... a kind of basic and a kind of "premium" option. And where the "premium" one costs extra. It may well be that this is technically what we have. 3 or 4 years of VSS is more expensive than using one release of VW for 3 or 4 years. But at the point of deciding whether to renew each year, it doesn't look like such a clear choice, because it all depends on how long you use that year's release before upgrading. If you don't renew the VSS and then, a year later decide you want to upgrade, then it turns out that the non-VSS option was the *more* expensive one. I just thing there's something wrong with the psychology in the way the pricing is structured. Each year I'm taking a gamble on (a) is the next release going to be any good or have anything new that's useful to me and (b) is my workload over the next year going to justify the investment anyway. It makes the decision a bit of a stressful one, instead of a clear choice between one thing and the other ... you have to remind yourself each time how the pricing works, what the effective 'penalty' will be if you don't renew and then decide to upgrade anyway, and then try and do some kind of calculation of what *probably* will end up the best value. If the VSS subscription was a standalone thing - you pay X per year for support, regularly updated content libraries, and so on, and then as a separate decision each year you decide whether to pay for an upgrade of the software itself - then yes, sure, it would be clear that the revenue from VSS can pay for extra content developers and so on. But the way it *feels* is more like VSS is something constructed to push people into upgrading annually without seeing what they are buying first. I'd rather be pushed into upgrading annually by being offered each year an upgrade that makes my work more productive and more enjoyable. Sadly that's not what we've been given recently; I do hope that this will change but at the moment that's how I feel about it - I don't have trust in the next release bringing useful improvements. Meanwhile, if VSS was a standalone offering that gave me enhanced cloud capabilities, content libraries... then maybe I'd pay for it, if it was the right price, even though I might not upgrade the core software each year. I think it's all about making a connection between what we pay and what we get for it. The current pricing system seems obfuscatory.
  6. line-weight

    to renew or not to renew (that is the question)

    The thing is though, that unlike something like dedicated technical support, it would presumably cost VW no more to make this content available to everyone. So it's not really an extra given to subscribers but something with-held from non-subscribers.
  7. line-weight

    to renew or not to renew (that is the question)

    That's the way I see it too. Maybe for some the 'technical support' is helpful. I tend to find I get an answer more quickly on these forums, and when there's no quick answer, it usually confirms that the problem is a result of a defect in the software, which VSS technical support aren't going to be able to fix. Of course, not everyone likes using forums for technical advice so I can see that it might be of use to some.
  8. line-weight

    to renew or not to renew (that is the question)

    Sometimes it seems like it just buys me new bugs and no appreciable improvement. That's largely how 2018 felt to me, anyway.
  9. line-weight

    to renew or not to renew (that is the question)

    If it's true that 2019 focusses on bug fixes then that's great news - however I do feel the same as posters above: why should I have to pay extra to have things that don't work fixed? I get the point about it using up extra resources to apply fixes to older versions as well as the new one. But how about this idea: A version of VW2019 with bug fixes and some new features. This could be offered to new users and those who want to continue their VSS subscription. Then a secondary version with any 'new' functionality disabled - so it does the same as 2018, except that everything works. This provided free of charge to anyone who's already paid for 2018. Speaking for myself - if that allowed me to see that 2019 did indeed run more smoothly than 2018, then I'd likely be willing to pay up for the full version if any additional functionality seemed worth it.
  10. line-weight

    to renew or not to renew (that is the question)

    It's that time of year again for me. Last year I renewed, but now wish I hadn't as VW2018 really wasn't worth it. My inclination this year is to let it lapse, and wait till 2019 has been out for a few months, and try and make a judgement from comments on here whether it's any more usable than 2018. Anyone else in the same position?
  11. line-weight

    a case for browser based CAD

    It's always seemed to me that a fundamental issue with the concept of a 3d model from which details can be harvested is that you have to then build the *whole* of that model accurately (at least up to a given level of detail). This is different from a skillfully prepared set of 2d drawings which allow certain details to be implied (or explained in notes) instead of every single permutation having to be drawn fully. Or indeed, where certain things aren't drawn, it's implied that whoever is building it is responsible for making sensible decisions at a detail level (or asking the question if unsure). (This is in the context of architectural drawings, probably less relevant to other disciplines)
  12. line-weight

    a case for browser based CAD

    That's the thing, I can see how it would be very useful on a collaborative design project, indeed on the design stage of anything where all parties involved could use and understand the 3d model. For example, it would be great if, when I (doing the architectural side of things) work with a structural engineer, we could both look at the implications of structural member positioning and so on on a live 3d model. Would certainly make it much easier to explain conflicts or work out solutions. But in practice on small/medium jobs...even with 2d CAD I find it difficult enough to integrate architectural/structural drawings. Engineers often like to mark up by hand onto printouts of my drawings. Maybe you'll get a CAD file back from them where they've imported some geometry from my drawings, and done their own bit using their own classes and so on, in a form that's messy enough that it's easiest just for me to measure off and put the info back into my drawings manually. So, if even getting basic 2d integration is such a struggle I can't even imagine how it would work smoothly with a live 3d model that all could make contributions to. Maybe I am being unduly pessimistic.
  13. line-weight

    a case for browser based CAD

    That might work for the type of stuff you're doing, but that doesn't mean it would work in an architecture context. If I think of all of the people I need to share info with... for most of them it's pretty much inconceivable that sharing a cloud based 3d model would either be possible or useful in any way. Don't get me wrong - I'd be very pleased if I could work that way and escape the tyranny of 2d PDF documentation - but that point, in practical terms, is miles and miles away. At least for the kind of work I do. Just as an example - when a project is on site you usually have a set of contract drawings, to which various revisions will be made as work goes along. Each of those changes needs not just to be communicated but recorded for the purposes of agreeing cost implications. If that's done by revising a PDF drawing, with changes highlighted, and a revision/issue number associated with the date and so on, then it's fairly unambiguous and no-one can really say that they don't have the technological capacity to open and view a PDF document. Yet working with small contracting firms it's often enough of a challenge just to make sure the people on site have got the most recent revision. Yes in theory, with a centralised, always up-to-date model, those builders would maybe have a tablet or laptop that would allow them to view stuff in 3d on site and pull off the relevant information. It would have to be user-friendly enough that anyone who can read a drawing on paper could do this and get the info they needed. And there'd have to be some system of not just tracking changes to the working drawings but recording changes that are proposed and then abandoned, or not yet agreed, and so on. And all that structure would have to be well established and understood by everyone using it and maybe even written into standard building contracts. None of this is impossible as such but it would require big changes in working practices, not just to drawing software.
  14. line-weight

    a case for browser based CAD

    I got the email survey! (and completed it)
  15. line-weight

    Section line marker - any way to set defaults?

    I don't think that could work with the 'create section viewport' command, or with the automatic drawing coordination stuff.
×