Jump to content

Hello Community!

This Saturday, April 11, from 9am – 1pm EDT we will be performing maintenance on the Vectorworks Community Board. During this time, the site will be unavailable.

line-weight

Member
  • Content Count

    1,377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

518 Spectacular

3 Followers

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. Should I change it to the same wish for 2021 now? (I've not used 2020 yet. I don't get the impression that there is a consensus it's fixed the various long running problems though)
  2. We've been complaining about this for about 100 years now and very little has improved, in terms of fixing existing broken stuff, and making things more consistent. So I doubt much is going to happen in the next 100 years. @abshapi see this thread: https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/49017-my-wish-vw2020-to-have-no-new-features-please/ Your experience is the same as mine - the closer you look, the worse it gets. It's become a familiar process - I decide to try out some tool that I've not really used before, because I think, let's invest some time in better understanding VW and taking better advantage of all it has to offer. After a day or so of investigation, in perhaps 75% of cases, I don't arrive at a point of "great, now I understand this and can use it to make my work more efficient" - I arrive at a point where I've figured out exactly which bits don't work at all, which bits of the interface are needlessly confusing, and often, that the conclusion is that the tool is effectively useless. Then I write a thread on here complaining about it, including often a quite detailed explanation of the problems (other posters do this too) there's a half-acknowledgement if I'm lucky, and hardly ever are any of the problems fixed. The door and window tools are the classic and most outrageous examples of this.
  3. Roofing membrane which can be around 2mm is something that I often find is helpful to draw as a double line at larger scales, to clearly show things like lapping details. If you show a lapping detail of two elements, and you are using solid single lines, then you have to be careful to make sure that they are somewhat thinner than their 'actual' thickness in order that they are legible as distinct lines.
  4. Yeah...but then you might as well just offset the polyline.
  5. I think sometimes that can work fine... but then you can get into problems with lineweights working at different scales, for example if you have a 1:10 detail and a 1:5 detail, and you have chosen lineweights for 'cut' lines and 'elevation' lines, you want those lines to be the same weight at each scale, but if you have another linetype that's supposed to match the actual thickness of the material then you want those lines to be twice the weight in the 1:5 detail as in the 1:10 one.
  6. Hm, the filleting seems to work a little inconsistently for me, on walls. Assuming it works fine though... moving a corner does mean the following steps: - delete fillet - move end of wall segment 1 to new location - move end of wall segment 2 to new location - re-fillet. Not too bad, but with the linear material tool, in theory the same operation involves only one step (or two if you include double-click to access plyline edit mode).
  7. The fillet command doesn't work on walls for me... I get this Also... assuming I could get a curved join between the two walls, would I be able to pick up that corner by the imagined intersection of the two straight portions, and move it precisely to another location (ie what would be the steps to make the change shown in my 2nd/3rd screenshots in my previous post?
  8. I'm currently working on something where there are quite a lot of details involving roofing membrane, folded metal flashings and so on, where I want to draw these elements as a double line, with radiused corners, and crucially easily editable/adjustable. Previously I might have drawn a polyline, filleted the corners, then offset by the thickness of the material. That is then a pain to edit retrospectively. This tool (so far) seems quite useful for this purpose. Changing from the 2nd to 3rd arrangement illustrated below simply involves moving one vertex on the object. At the same time I've discovered the "fillet point mode" for polylines which I'd never noticed before, and am going to be using a fair bit for lots of things from now on I think!
  9. Bumping this thread, as I've only just started trying to use this tool. 2 questions: 1) As per the above discussion, is it still the case that essentially you can't really customise it? There's no such thing as a user defined 'linear material style'? 2) Do you use it in practice, and is it reliable? I found another thread that suggests some people find it glitchy ( https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/64420-linear-materials-flipping-vw2017/ ). Am I setting myself up for problems if I start using it a lot?
  10. Realistically (in my opinion).... we are never going to get VW-specific parametric BIM objects for anything other than perhaps a tiny proportion of products. The user base is simply too small. Even if the Velux ones were updated... the reality is, that if you are specifying rooflights you want to be able to choose from manufacturers. Ended up making some Fakro rooflights in 3d a while ago, by importing some other format, and doing a lot of manual fixing and messing around to get something that actually was any good to use in a working drawing. I think we should entirely give up on any idea that companies are going to make stuff specifically for VW. Instead, we need: 1) Better automated import/conversion of 'standard' filetypes - Revit, IFC, whatever and/or 2) A decent, reliable, customisable window tool that can get 'near enough' to a manufacturer specific system. With a rooflight option I'd rather spend 2 hours tweaking the settings of a good window tool to create something that near-enough emulates a manufacturer's details, that is then parametric (I can use it to make various instances of that system with differing sizes and configurations), than spend half a day bodging together a 3d model from scratch, which is non-parametric and requires further manual modelling work to create each instance, or each time the design is revised and the window size is changed by 50mm. It's truly infuriating that we still don't have functional window and door tools, while VW marketing materials try and pretend the software is 'BIM ready'.
  11. Having a whatsapp group for this purpose seems to work quite well!
  12. Let's focus on full functionality on desktops first...
  13. Having just tried it out, I think it will choose whichever wall is 'in front' in top/plan view (which is not the same as which one is on top in 3d space). You can use the 'send to back' and 'send to front' commands to change this. That would get things in the right place in the 3d model but it might not draw it properly in top/plan. You could I guess put the upper wall in a hidden class in which case it's back to a variation of the strategy you worked out for yourself.
  14. Solution 1: Abandon using top-plan view - it doesn't work. Use horizontal sections to make your floorplans (with a new set of problems) Solution 2: Can't you build the wall from two walls stacked on top of each other - but both on the 1st floor layer?

 

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...