line-weight

Member
  • Content count

    466
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

79 Excellent

About line-weight

  • Rank
    Journeyman

Personal Information

  • Location
    London, UK
  1. Can you put that imported base drawing on a different layer/class, and turn it off temporarily, to see if the problem remains? I've had similar issues in 2017, not in top/plan but in 3d views, where I have a complex symbol (usually imported, and an over-detailed mesh). In certain operations, when I move the cursor in front of one of those symbols, everything slows down, often resulting in a temporary hang. Hiding the symbol stops it. I now have a special saved view that hides all complex symbols. Not a very satisfactory to have to work. Hasn't been acknowledged by VW as an issue as far as I know.
  2. I've never used Revit myself. So, in fact, don't understand what the above statement actually means. What is a "Revit building object"? When it's a window, is it a parametric (Revit family?) object or a dumb object?
  3. So...here is my previous experience with Revit import - I find on Bimobject a door or window I want. Let's say from the Velfac range. It doesn't have a Vectorworks specific version so I download the Revit version. Then I go to Revit import and import that window. And it does import, but it imports as some kind of mesh object, and this is essentially useless because it's not parametric; I can't tell it to be the specific size and configuration I'm after. Am I understanding correctly that in 2018 when I do that Revit import, it'll import as a properly functioning parametric door or window object with all the profiles etc correct to the manufacturer design? If so - great.
  4. Exactly, all we are talking about is the method of generation. The problem with the current top/plan view system is that in many situations it *fails* to generate a plan that abides to standard architectural conventions. And fails horribly.
  5. Might be nice to have a narrow/wide field of view option in the viewer. That wide angle does distort things at the edges quite a lot.
  6. Given that it's seemingly going to be some time before we can move away from top/plan view, I wish there would be some official recognition of its limitations. Because it seems I'm not the only one who ends up doing quite a bit of "fixing up" in annotation to top/plan viewports (and sections and elevations too). That's not what the annotation function is designed for, so it is a messy and unsatisfactory solution. If VW would acknowledge that it's not always possible to create a usable plan without this kind of fixing up, then perhaps they could provide us with a way of making those amendments that's designed for the purpose. And include mention of this in tutorials and so on, instead of pretending there's no issue. It would make life a lot more tolerable while we wait for the stage where viewports don't need any fixing up for presentation. And I think that's going to be quite a long wait.
  7. agree with all of this.
  8. The idea of letting others into my model to take views or sections as they wish makes me a bit uncomfortable...then I have to model everything in full detail, so that things will be correct wherever someone chooses to slice it. You might say that that's a route to a fully thought through design... but it also takes away my power to decide that certain parts don't need to be drawn/modelled in full detail, in the interests of time efficiency. What you describe might work in an engineering/product design context, but I'm not sure in an architectural one.
  9. Nice. Probably more useful than web view.
  10. Can anyone? It would be reassuring to know there is someone somewhere with long-term oversight. Developing two very similar - but not the same - modes makes me wonder whether there is. As I said above, I feel this is typical of the way VW often seems to be developed with no high-level design strategy, and in a way that just multiplies confusion for users.
  11. Seems like this can do stuff that clipcube can't, while clipcube does stuff that this can't. Is there an intention to converge into one mode that can do all the good stuff rather than these parallel ones?
  12. Hm, OK but in that case why not just have the double-click through from the SLVP bounce you into a clip cube view, set up with the clip cube arranged to cut the model as per the relevant section? Then you can achieve the same things but using an already-familiar editing mode. This seems to provide yet another editing/viewing mode that is similar-but-not-quite-the-same as another one. This is something that VW is accursed with generally and is what can make it monumentally confusing to use sometimes, especially I imagine for new users. It also, I assume, means lots of work is put into creating this new thing instead of making the already-existing clip cube better. The clip cube is very useful but I find it remains slightly buggy (bits of stuff outside the cube sometimes popping into view during rotations, things like that).
  13. My question: what does this give us that the clip cube doesn't? Currently if I am editing my model in 3D and want to do something that chopping a section through it would make easier - I use the clip cube. To do that I click on one button at the top of the screen, adjust my clip cube as I want it, and carry on. If I understand correctly, to use this, I'd have to go to a sheet layer, find an already existing section viewport that happens to cut the model in the place which is useful for the operation I want to carry out, double click on that viewport, enter into this new editing mode, and then do my stuff. That seems a lot more laborious, and what if I don't already have a section set up in the place I want? I guess I am missing something here?
  14. Yes, at the moment we have to expend a lot of energy worrying about how to build the model so that a half-usable top/plan view and or sections can be generated. But of course it should be the other way around - the processes that extract the information from the model should be designed to extract from a model that is built in a way that makes sense from a building-the-model point of view.
  15. On my desk I have: a 3d mouse a normal mouse lots of bits of paper and pencils