line-weight

You need to link a camera to the viewport first.

I'm bumping this thread (which has 24 upvotes) to repeat my plea above, two and a half years later. I dread the point in any project where I need to start adding notes from a database, because if it's been a little while since I last used it, I have to re-remember all the traps that are set to trip users up, and fall into a couple of them along the way.

If this ever happened, I'd like to request that ODS format was also supported, for those of us who try and limit our dependence on Microsoft/Google and other proprietary systems.

At least working on older domestic properties - I've never been given reliable plans at the start of the job. Usually clients have some hopelessly inaccurate diagrammatic floor plans done by an estate agent for the house sale. Sometimes there are plans done by an architect for a previous project, but even if they depict relatively recent construction, it still varies quite significantly from the as-built reality. Agree with everything you day about point clouds though.

This is disappointing but useful to know, thanks. It means that I should probably invest some time in working out workflows that rely on 3rd party extrude-based tools instead.

A camera has to be linked to the viewport before this is possible - is that right?

I think I might take the introduction of M5 chips as a good time to buy a second hand M3/M4 machine, as a bunch of people upgrade. It looks to me like I'll get the best performance improvement (per £ spent), as far as VW is concerned, by investing in something with a lot more RAM than my current M1 mini - rather than being focused on the chip version.

You might find this thread useful: You basically need to create a camera "linked" to a viewport which is a bit of a non-intuitive process. Once you've done that, you have some numerical values which you can edit manually.

I'm bumping this thread again to ask if there has been any progress on this, and whether we are likely to see any improvements soon.

Not if they built it in 1860. Or even if they built it in 1950 or 1995.

yup, I never trust any floorplans given to me by building owners, they are nearly always terrible.

It very likely depends on size of project. For small domestic projects I very often carry out the survey myself. Why? Because: 1) It gives me an opportunity to get my head around how an existing building is put together - I need to visit in person to do this anyway - so might as well spend a few additional hours taking measurements 2) I have an idea of what I actually need to measure in detail and what I don't, because I probably already have an idea of what the likely alterations are going to involve. Communicating this to a surveyor isn't always straightforward. 3) It usually ends up much more efficient for me to translate my survey notes directly into a useful VW model, than it is to take the surveyor's 2d or 3d drawings and then translate them into a model that's set up the way I want it. There are downsides to this - one is that doing a survey with pen, paper and laser measure is somewhat tedious, as can be the process of converting this into a 3d model (which involves making decisions about how to correct or average inevitable measuring errors). Another is that yes, technically it means I take on some liability, but I am usually confident enough in my method that I will spot any errors. And in the real world, if a surveyor makes a mistake, for a small project how likely is it I'd actually be able to pursue them for any consequential costs? Requesting a point cloud from a surveyor - which is what I'm increasingly going to do from now on, I think - addresses some of these downsides. It means I don't have to crawl around on site as much, or stand in the rain trying to aim a laser measure at the underside of some eaves. If it's done well, I don't have to go through the process of trying to work out the best way to correct the errors that come from measuring things that are a bit out of square. I have (most of) the info I need directly on the computer and I can translate it directly into the VW model setup that I want to use. It also makes it easy to model parts of a building in very basic detail initially - and then revisit them later to add detail as necessary. Once the point cloud is in there, it's available for direct reference throughout the entire project.

It's been a bit of a learning curve but I have now successfully used point clouds, issued by surveyors, a couple of times within vectorworks. In future I may well ask for some surveys as pointcloud format only. When surveyors convert the pointcloud data into some other form, usually I just end up tidying up whatever they produce. I'd rather have the source data itself & convert it into a VW model myself. This will not apply for all projects or for all people, and the way VW handles them has several problems but I certainly wouldn't call them "pointless".

Ok, thanks. I've submitted a bug VB-218574.

Hi @Nikolay Zhelyazkov I don't think I understand what you mean here. The help page tells me this: In the example file I gave, the parent objects do not match the criteria. Therefore if the info in the help page is correct, no subparts should be captured. You refer to your case of (b) which you describe as: But in my example datavis I am not including any criteria about subparts - there is only one criteria which is simply "class contains materials": I'd like to clarify this before submitting a bug report, to make sure I'm not misunderstanding something.