line-weight

Why nurbs rather than simple extrudes?

So, I've never used Rhino. I've messed about a bit with NURBS in Vectorworks, but the almost complete lack of documentation as to how exactly they work limits the amount of time it seems sensible to invest in them, and they aren't necessary for 95% of the stuff that I want to draw in Vectorworks (and I use it mainly for architectural stuff). It was interesting to follow this thread a short while ago, because it seems to be impossible to build the object truly seamlessly in VW, including using NURBS - https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/104317-modelling-challenge-möbius-strip-model-this-as-a-seamless-solid-with-no-visible-joins/ I'm curious whether it would be possible in Rhino.

Yup.

Presumably this means you're not using the auto-generated variety, and have to do a certain amount of manual messing around to get what you want? I abandoned that route because it just seemed too easy to end up with that sort of thing; certain issues being incorrect or getting in the wrong order.

This pretty much sums up where I ended up too. Of the three ones that can be auto generated the "Title Block Project Revision History" one is the one that is near enough what I want, with a few customisations that can be made without breaking it. It can't show a zero or dot for sheets that have been issued without a revision number. One of the other auto generated ones *can* show dots but the overall format of the report doesn't do what I want it to do. I kind of decided, independently of VW limitations, that I'd start just issuing drawings as "Revision A" to start with, because this actually removes the potential for various other confusions that can arise.

The issue of subsequent editing often gets glossed over in tutorials. Not just EAP, other things too. It's possible to follow a tutorial that shows you exactly how to make something quite elaborate, and in a very tidy way. However, while this is certainly useful in gaining an understanding of how the tools work, it doesn't match up very well with how things happen in real use. To take the example of the gear cogwheel created using EAP, in the video posted above... what if, once I've drawn it all, I realise I want to reduce the overall diameter slightly, or maybe adjust the shape of the tooth notch? It's not just that I have to go and fight the EAP tool, perhaps attempting to paste a new profile in place of the old one, within "edit profile" mode. I also have to re-build the duplicate array, and so on. So, maybe I would want to make a symbol and array that. But then I'd have problems making a solid addition. Maybe I could try and build a "path" for the whole of the cog. But then I'd have to have a closed loop NURBS and VW doesn't like that. And I'd have to manually edit each notch in that path. It would be nice if I could build the path out of an array of symbols but VW won't allow that. I'm not sure that EAP in VW would be of any practical use to a mechanical designer, in the design process of an object like that, unless you were simply building a model of a finalised design. This is not meant as a criticism of the turorial video. But in response to "what is each of us using EAP for" - I think in practice, it's mainly for very simple things, because you run into so many difficulties when trying to do more complex stuff. Partly because of limitations of the tool itself, partly because of absent documentation.

That's a slightly weird use of the eyedropper tool - I wonder how we're supposed to find that out. And what are "sets"? Is "pick up sets defaults" a strange shortening of "pick up settings defaults" or something? Just to put an additional obstacle in the path of our understanding.

Here is the lack of documentation being mentioned & discussed back in 2017: https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/52320-extrude-along-path-rotation/ Here's me moaning about it again in 2019: https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/66403-extrude-along-path-whys-my-wall-leaning-over/&do=findComment&comment=329716 I don't think I've tried the "was this page helpful" link for this particular issue. I've tried that approach with a few things recently, not with great results, as described here: https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/104945-please-stop-telling-us-to-re-report-problems-via-black-hole-webforms/&do=findComment&comment=466182

This is probably very important info, and something that is missing from any guidance I've seen up until now. I wonder how many of my EAP problems can be explained by this. I will quite commonly have a path line that is made up of, say, several polygons and straight lines, which I then "compose" into one. It's not always practical or possible to draw as NURBS from scratch though. Or, where it is, it's an awkward and unintuitive route to getting what you want. In fact the shapes in your tutorial provide a good example. The path line looks like this: The curved section in the middle - it's a kind of parabolic type curve, because that's what the NURBS tool creates. What if I want this to be a curve with a constant and fixed radius though? Very commonly that's what is wanted, because it's what's needed for certain things to be defined or machined. If I wanted that curve to be a constant radius I don't think I could do it with the NURBS tool - I'd need to draw an arch and two straight lines and then compose them together. The same applies to all the curves on the "profile" None of these are precise, constant radius curves. Given that (as far as I can see) there are certain shapes I can't make with the NURBS tool, is there some kind of error-proof workflow that starts out with things like arcs and lines, and composes them into a polyline that can then be used by the EAP tool without problems? Another consequence of all this is that for many things, it's not possible to make post-hoc edits to the path or profile lines of an EAP object. Because I can't do things like adjust fillet radii, without pretty much going back to the beginning and drawing again from the elements that I used before "composing" into one polyline/NURBS. NURBS are good for blobby type geometry that you don't want to edit after the event. They are not much good at all for more precise stuff, or things you want to be able to tweak without going back to the beginning.

So. It's 2023 now, and VW still can't be bothered to update or improve the documentation for the EAP tool.

I'd much rather it be implemented in the form of letting the tool use styles, rather than adding yet another way to save and recall settings for something, that doesn't apply to other similar objects. Additionally, "load settings" type functionality leaves already created objects frozen in time, rather than letting you update things in bulk and consistently. It's a really backwards way of doing things - we have the "styles" concept - it should be applied to all tools rigorously and with at least a vague sense of urgency. As it is, I'm looking forward to seeing it fully implemented some time around the 22nd or 23rd century AD.

What exactly do you pick up from, and drop on to? Do you have to find an object made by the relevant tool, pick up from here, and drop onto an object made by that tool in the new file? And do this for each tool individually?

Yes you always have to choose between a multi-panel object that can't follow undulations, or a series of individual panels.

This remains a mystery. Maybe @Matt Panzer can help? It does appear to have something to do with openings in walls, because it only happens when there's a window present in that wall section.

Are we talking about the "general notes" tool?