Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

727 Spectacular


About line-weight

  • Rank
    1000 Club

Personal Information

  • Location
    London, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This really, really should not be necessary though. 4 different stair tools, all of which have different problems or limitations. Sort it out, VW!
  2. Thanks - did not know that! For whatever reason that tool is not in my workspace but I've just added it. Having just had a look at it I can see that yes it does produce extrudes, which is loads more useful than the other stair tool. Looks like it can't do winders... but better than nothing.
  3. There are ways but my experience of doing it to stairs objects is that it's immensely time consuming because you have to do a lot of ungrouping and then repetitive stuff like you have to do each step independently (as far as I recall). I hardly ever use VW stairs now, for these reasons. Unless you are doing a really bog standard stair, it's quicker to model the whole thing directly from scratch. Why the stair tool outputs something made up of polygons instead of solids I really don't know. I though VW was supposed to be a solids modelling programme. Why design it like that?
  4. The X Y and Z could, alternatively, be colour coded in the dialogue box to match the axes on screen. I'd like this for the "move" command as well. I'm forever doing that by trial and error.
  5. Not very easily though, because it gives you a bunch of meshes and 3d polygons rather than solid objects.
  6. Hm. Let's hope that these issues can be fixed, then. It'll be interesting to see whether the higher spec mac minis when they announce them (later this year?) offer anything different in terms of peripherals.
  7. Do you just use 1 monitor @zoomer? I am quite interested in the new mini but I like to run 3 monitors. I know it's not supposed to manage more than 2 but it seems some people have got 3 working by various means.
  8. I name all my classes with a * prefix - this way, all of VW's auto created classes go to the bottom of the list and I try and just ignore them. At some point I decided that's easier than trying to track them all down, and it doesn't generally seem to cause problems.
  9. I generally find that once a slab starts refusing to be edited, it is likely to do a disappearing act some time soon. My solution - only use slabs when there's a major benefit over other more reliable objects - if one starts being troublesome or disappears... go back through backups, find a version where it still seems to be ok, copy and paste that back into the file. Alongside the automatic backups, I tend to make a separate "safe save" of any important VW projects I'm working on every day or two... these are often useful to go in and retrieve non-corrupted earlier versions of objects. Not ideal. But maybe they'll get around to fixing it within our lifetimes - we'll see.
  10. Let's not get impatient... they've only had 5 years to fix it.
  11. This applies if I use the "true curve" rather than the faceted version for the path, right? Because, once it's been converted to a segmented version, the end profiles are no longer perpendicular to the end segments of the path. This started me thinking... is there a way to facet the path such that the end profiles *are* perpendicular to the end segments? If there is, could this mean that each section of the wall/viaduct could be constructed from an EAP rather than a lofted object? The advantage of this would be that having constructed your wall/viaduct, you could make alterations to the profile without having to rebuild everything including the path. As far as faceting the curve is concerned, I am thinking along these lines: I have just shown a circle quadrant rather than a NURBS curve, for simplicity, but I think the principle would be the same (?) Black is original "true" curve, green is the method of faceting used by the current script, blue is an alternative, which means that the end facets would be at right angles to the true curve at its endpoints. I expect there is some reason this wouldn't work!
  12. It seems to me that what you have come up with works as well as is possible within VW's limits and is a method that will be very useful to anyone trying to deal with this kind of geometry. I hope that some people at VW will take the time to go through it and understand it fully, most crucially understanding the problems that it solves. I think the principle of making things "exactly correct" at the control profile locations is sound. And then what happens in between them is 99.9% correct but most importantly does not create the horrible buckled, messy geometry that you highlight in your examples of why the seemingly most obvious approaches don't work. In my particular use case for this... the biggest test would be using it to try and create a junction between two converging viaducts. When they are only curving in plan, it's quite straightforward to see how to do this, but my brain starts to hurt when I try and think about the geometry if there are also curves in elevation. I'd be interested to see if you've managed to do something along those lines...but that perhaps should be a separate discussion. In any case thanks very much for your work on this!
  13. My next question is about drawing a NURBS path where it needs to transition from a straight line (or even a radiused curve). For example, let's say this is plan view, and the grey rectangles represent straight sections of wall, or viaduct, or whatever. I want to create a curved connecting section using a NURBS path. Drawing it in "interpolation point mode" doesn't work because (I think) there's no way to ensure that the ends of the NURBS curve are exactly square to the ends of the straight sections: However it can be done in "control point mode": If I then place a profile at each end of that NURBS curve ... how do I then find all the "parallel" curves? Because I have to draw them in interpolation mode. I'm not going to get the correct result by trying to draw an interpolated curve between two points. So I can split the curve and introduce a third profile in the middle somewhere. Will that give me a correct curve? Or is it a case of the "parallel curves" becoming more and more correct, the more intermediate profiles I introduce? I have been too lazy to try this for myself out before typing this post... but suspect it's something you've already gone into.
  14. Thanks. I guess that's what I'd 'intuitively' expect - that the more control profiles, the more accuracy. Do you feel you understand sufficiently the maths behind the way NURBS curves are constructed, to say that in theory (assuming all the profiles are perpendicular etc) the NURBS should all be exactly parallel?
  15. There's a question that this method raises for me: - I draw a NURBS path, through each of the control points I want - assume the profile, set perpendicular to the path, at each control, is exactly the same at each of those points - then I draw all of my other NURBS paths, using the vertices of the control profiles along the way - am I right in saying that all of those NURBS parts I've drawn are not necessarily exactly parallel? To test this I've made a very simple example... the profile is exactly square, 690 by 690. There's just a start profile, an end profile and a mid profile. It's curved in plan only. I've constructed the 'wall' using the method described. If I measure the width of that wall at each of the profiles, it's 690 as expected. But if I measure its width between each of the segment vertices (which ought to be at positions exactly on the 'generating' NURBS curves) then it varies very slightly... in this example between 687 and 691. Is that just an inevitable result of the way VW produces the NURBS curves? I expect that this is something which in practice usually wouldn't matter... but it might in certain use cases, and maybe it would become more marked with more complicated curves. I can see that maybe you could try generating the extra NURBS curves by doing them as a parallel offset from the originating one...would that work? I think it might when they are on a 2d plane but then things would get complicated in 3d. parallel-test.vwx


7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114


© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

  • Create New...