Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

452 Spectacular

1 Follower

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. line-weight

    v.2020 now available

    Wait... does this mean that if I switch my callout to point to the same thing but from the opposite direction...I don't have to fiddle around and change the text justification manually any more? Custom for RSI clinics around the globe is going to go down! What are VW thinking?
  2. line-weight

    v.2020 now available

    I agree...it's pretty much straight-up false advertising.
  3. line-weight

    v.2020 now available

    I wonder if this will have any effect on the tendency for objects with a 'long' history to at some point go bad, and start refusing certain 3d operations. I tend to "convert to generic solids" at fairly regular intervals in an attempt to avoid this - losing the history.
  4. By 2050 perhaps we will be teleporting between storeys and stairs will have become redundant. So VW are in fact ahead of the game.
  5. line-weight

    v.2020 now available

    I just looked through the 'new features' brochure... got all hopeful about the door & window tool update, but it looks like it's fiddling round the edges instead of the complete rewrite of those tools that is urgently needed?
  6. For sure I can see why some might opt for design layer dimensions. For my needs, the annotations layer approach is the 'least bad' solution but that will not apply for everyone.
  7. Yes, perfectly possible to dimension orthographic sectional and elevational views in the annotations layer. The ability to do the same for isometric or perspective views would be useful though.
  8. Putting dimensions on the design layer also makes less and less sense the more you start drawing in 3d.
  9. Just my opinion really (and in an architectural drawing context) but dimensions should almost always be in annotations on the sheet layer. In an efficient set of drawings, the same dimension shouldn't need to be repeated on several sheets. If you need to communicate a dimension, then it should be communicated in the right place. If it's a setting-out dimension then it should be on the GAs or on a dedicated setting-out drawing. If it's a detail dimension it should be on the relevant detail drawing. I often see drawings made cluttered and confusing by dimensions that don't need to be there, because they are already stated somewhere else. My approach of almost never having them on a design layer seems to run contrary to various VW tutorials though. I don't know if that's because my dimensioning philosophy is not a widespread one, or if it's because the designers of VW don't understand enough about how architectural drawings are put together in real life practice.
  10. Sure. But my point is that if setting to "high quality" results in VW drawing in more detail than necessary, then that is somewhat independent of how much users know. Even a user with a high awareness of their computer's power and the conditions in their file would reasonably expect that setting something to a "higher" quality would provide some kind of advantage in exchange for slower zooming, etc. The way I see it, the way in which "how much users know" would affect things, is by users knowing "VW doesn't work properly therefore I have to change a setting to compensate" which indicates bad software design. But this new capability (hopefully) is an example of better design.
  11. Sorry, maybe I should have made clearer, I am talking about 3d perspective, cutaway, rendered sections, not orthographic ones. For example like this:
  12. Are any of these 3rd party rendering things any good for creating sectional views? There are lots of things I like about RW - the single file (potentially), and all the things you can do using multiple viewports, class overrides and so on. I also feel that the quality of the renders out of RW can be pretty good - if you put quite a lot of time in. The slowness of working in RW is one of its main downfalls, but another is the fact that it really can't do rendered sectional views properly. Either I end up using design layer viewports which are truly horrible - unstable and unwieldy - or I end up making a 'manual' section where I literally cut away a part of the model, which is time consuming, and loses the 'single up to date file' concept. And either way, it can't cut things that are supposed to be solid, so they look solid (everything is hollow with paper thin faces). So I end up constructing section planes manually (something I really shouldn't have to do). So does anyone have a successful workflow for rendered, 3d cutaway sectional views? Is it worth me trying out Twinmotion, etc?
  13. Have you been given a test version to try out?
  14. Bit odd the way this is explained in the video, as if it's resolving a fault in users rather than in the software. If setting the quality to 'very high' means that VW draws stuff in the distance in more detail than is necessary then that doesn't mean that users are making a 'wrong' choice, it means that VW is doing it wrong. Anyway, I wonder if this change will have any effect on the massive slow-down seen in models with imported, complex mesh objects. That includes in my experience problems selecting things (beach ball of death) when there's a complex object behind them (even if that object is not in direct line of sight view).
  15. line-weight

    Exporting to pdf - vs. image file - file size

    Should be fairly straightforward surely: you never throw away the data in the source document (ie the VW file) unless the user actively wants to, and you never export to a PDF document data that is outside a crop, because otherwise why would you be using a crop boundary.


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.