Jump to content

line-weight

Member
  • Posts

    3,771
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

2,509 Spectacular

7 Followers

About line-weight

Personal Information

  • Location
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

13,484 profile views
  1. @Nikolay Zhelyazkov am I right to think that it's not possible to retrospectively edit which sheets are included in a drawing issue? For example, if I have gone through the process of adding a new drawing issue, but then find that there was one sheet that I forgot to include in it - it seems like my only option is to delete that drawing issue then re-make it to include the missing sheet. I can highlight the issue I want to change, and press "edit" but the options in the dialogue don't include anything about which sheets are included.
  2. I mean, I guess it'll inevitably get better in time, but for me it's kind of pleasing to watch (for now) AI failing to do a very good job of one of the more basic tasks of a profession that I've invested decades of my life in getting good at.
  3. This is sometimes an issue for me too, if I am doing a bit of work freelance for another office. They seldom are familiar with that workflow. Would be interested to hear what you end up doing in this case and how it works out.
  4. If I understand the question correctly... In this instance, I would just model this directly and not try and do it with wall objects. When you say "blend in with wall tool" do you mean, where a directly modeled wall meets a "wall tool" wall, you don't want to see a join line in plan and section? I do this by ticking the "merge with structural objects" box in the wall object's OIP: Then, in the relevant section viewports I use these settings: So, if the GWB (assume this is what we call plasterboard) components of wall tool objects have the same fill as your directly modelled bits of GWB, they ought to merge in section. If they meet in-plane, then they ought also to merge in elevation views (this seems to work 95% of the time). Annoyingly, they won't also merge in shaded views. I use "Horizontal section viewports" for floorplans and the same principle applies. Things will of course work differently if you use top/plan for your floorplans in which case you have to start messing around with autohybrids and so on, and I'm not sure if that same merging behaviour still works in that case. This sort of thing is why I don't use top/plan for floorplans.
  5. That's fairly much the method I've used. The limitation is that each segment has to be a whole number of treads which means that the radius can only change at points determined by whole tread-depths. This gets more problematic, the sharper the radius is. That aside though, it doesn't work too badly.
  6. Yeah I nearly always end up modelling stairs from scratch for the detailed design ... but try to use a "close enough" parametric one at early stages.
  7. This is something that annoys me all the time. I'd thought it was an intermittent bug but now I see it only happens when there are empty lines at the bottom. This at least gives me a way of making it happen less often (avoid those empty lines at the end). But this behaviour is quite maddening especially when you are editing a lot of text boxes in different positions across a sheet. By the way, assuming you have those empty lines, if you then move the cursor to where you want it using the arrows, it *won't* snap back to the bottom if you first type something in the position you've just moved it to.
  8. Thanks. Looking for something somewhat parametric at this stage though, so that I can fiddle with various options. I've ended up using the legacy "custom stair" tool which allows a sort of ellipse made up of several curved sections joined together. Rather painful to make adjustments to but better than nothing.
  9. Can anyone point me where to find this?
  10. My solution: stack some wall types manually, and use horizontal sections for floorplans, instead of top/plan view. This way you can get an accurate model, plan and sections without waiting for VW to implement some kind of stacked wall solution that plays nicely with the top/plan approach.
  11. My advice: to preserve your own sanity just don't try to do walkthrough animations in vectorworks. Even going from one saved view to another is a bit of a mess in my experience. I would be interested to see what results you get if you do try to do it but if you want to end up with something that looks vaguely professional I think you should look at external applications.
  12. I'd say I just add levels to the storey - layers don't come into it really. My levels and layers are independent of each other, other than that the layers have to be associated with the storey in order to have access to the levels. However I'm aware that I'm not exactly using it as intended because I am ignoring most of the functionality that is to do with having multiple storeys and level types that occur in several of them. I don't quite understand how a Level is associated with a Layer (via that "Create Layer" check box you mention) or what exactly that means. I may have managed to understand it when I first figured it all out. At the moment though I don't need to understand it because my system works fine for me for now. I'm not surprised that many people don't use Storeys at all. The whole setup is very confusing. The way the various interfaces are designed doesn't help. I think in the explanation of how it works, there needs to be some kind of graphical representation of how everything (that is, layers, storeys, levels, level types, layerless levels, etc etc) relates to everything else.
  13. Normally when I duplicate them, the data gets updated. Today this did not seem to be happening, and I assumed it was because I'd made them not active (because ticking the box fixed it). But maybe it is unrelated.
  14. Have come across a small issue. My drawing register is set up, as per @Nikolay Zhelyazkov's suggestion above, so that only title blocks where I've ticked "activate title block" are included in the register. That's fine - I can have various drawing sheets that are works-in-progress and choose not to have them included in the register until they are actually ready to be issued. However, if I duplicate an existing sheet layer, which has that box unticked, then the new sheet layer is given a new sheet number, but that number is not reflected in its title block. So for example I have sheet number 250, and duplicate it, and VW automatically numbers the duplicated version 251 (which is what I want) but sheet 251's title block still has 250 as its sheet number. I have to tick and then untick the "activate title block" box in order to get it to display the correct number. Is this intended behaviour?
  15. Ah right. Yes, this is bringing back memories of things that I found very confusing when I was first trying them out, but I can't now remember exactly the details. Is it something to do with the difference between a "level" and a "level type"? Because in my setup I think I only use "level types" and disregard what happens to levels that are intended to repeat in multiple stories. I think I must have "layerless levels" but where is it that you make the choice between a layerless level and a story level? If it's any help, below are the instructions I wrote myself a few years back for setting up new files. They seem to work. I had to write these for myself because the whole thing is so confusing. Storeys & levels Currently testing: have one ‘general storey’ and all levels assigned to this This means “level” and “level type” are in effect the same thing, because there will only be one instance of each level type New file setup: First step for new file - go to organisation dialogue, stories tab, click “default storey levels” button and delete all Now do same clicking on “level types” button and deleting all This makes clean start so only newly created desired levels are visible. Create a new storey called “general” and assign any relevant layers to it.** Give that storey elevation = 0** Leave Layer Name Prefix/Suffix box as it is - can’t make it blank. Is not relevant if using only one instance of each level type.** **(assuming using one-storey setup) Make a new level: To make a new level, go to organisation dialogue, stories tab. Highlight relevant storey, click “edit” Brings up “edit storey” dialogue, click “new level” Invites choice of an existing “level type” via dropdown, can use an existing type, or choose “new level type” within dropdown Allows naming of new level type Then specify elevation (don’t tick ‘create layer’) *tick “use elevation benchmark” (what does this actually do? Chooses benchmark style to use by default? This doesn’t seem to happen) Will appear in the list of levels in the “edit storey” dialogue, need to add tick against it to make active (must do this before exiting dialogue or it simply disappears!) NB there can only be one instance of “level type” per storey (therefore per file, if all levels assigned to one storey) Change level name: go to organisation dialogue, stories tab, “level types” button Highlight and edit level type name as desired. (NB this changes name of all instances of level type, but there will only be one instance anyway in a one general storey setup) Change a level’s elevation: go to organisation dialogue, stories tab, highlight the storey that the level’s assigned to, press edit button Edit elevation as desired (NB this edits elevation of that instance of the level type. In general storey setup there will only be one instance anyway) Delete a level: Deleting a level type doesn’t delete instances of that level that already exist in the file To delete a level instance, go to organisation palette, stories tab, highlight the storey that the level’s assigned to, press edit button Untick the relevant level Now any objects previously bound to it will show as bound to “[deleted level name] (doesn’t exist)” To completely get rid of a level, need to delete the level type and also any instance of it per storey. (There will only be one instance in a general storey setup) Does deleting levels cause issues? Yes I think it might, does it make things revert to a random layer elevation instead? May be best not to, and prefix active levels with *
×
×
  • Create New...