line-weight

I don't know if it's "working as intended" or not, but this doesn't work. The biscuits could be made visible by using dashed hidden line for "extents beyond cut plane", see example file below. The dashed line could be changed to a solid one. This may mess up things elsewhere though, maybe revealing geometry further beyond. Then there is the extents of the section to play with. This is all a bit of a roundabout way to do things though. Personally I'd just make those biscuits their own class, the dividers another, and turn them on or off as desired. sect.vwx

My experience is that it's definitely more effective to nag on the forums than submit bugs formally so that's what I do.

There are various threads knocking around, some from quite a while ago, that talk about similar-ish problems, eg

I don't trust DLVPs; they always seem to end up with problems like this. As @Tom W. says this has been discussed before. I think I'm right in saying that there's still no way to make a clip-cube type 3d view where components etc are properly sectioned on the cut plane, is that right? You are basically limited to sections where you are looking straight-on to a single cut plane.

You could turn on all the layers you want to move together, and turn off all other layers. Then turn on all classes (unless there are any objects in classes that you don't want to move). Then do a select-all (or select with marquee depending on whether you want to move everything in those layers. That should select all the objects together and then you should be able to move them all together. You'll have to make sure you have the right class/layer options set up, so that you can select things that aren't in the currently active layer/class: However, your question also makes me wonder if you are using layers for things that you should really be using classes for. When you say all elements are on their own layers, why are they spread across multiple layers? Or do you mean you have several iterations of a design and each iteration has its own layer?

You can associate walls & slabs, so that they are sort of attached to each other, and that might let you do what you want just by adjusting the dimensions of the slab object (with the walls following along). But this is not a feature I really use - others may be able to answer better. If that approach isn't feasible then I think this would have to be done using a script of some kind.

I just did an experiment on a drawing I'm currently working on which has a keyplan. My keyplan is for a much smaller building than the one @serge_01 is showing. Adding in those classes does slow it down a bit - but in my case it's maybe the difference between a quarter and a half second so it doesn't really matter. It would have a noticeable impact if I updated all vports in the file I guess. That's using a horizontal section. And with "display 2d components" off. So it is drawing the actual 3d geometry rather than the 2d components. Many of my symbols don't have a 2d component anyway.

Typically when I use these kinds of keyplans I turn off the classes that contain things like loose furniture and sanitary fittings, because they are the ones that tend to contain complex geometry, and these items clutter the plan visually in any case. But that approach might work better for architectural plans than plans that are mainly about furniture layouts.

There is no "keep curves" tickbox when you convert a polyline to a NURBS curve. Consider the following set of steps: 1. Make a polyline with several straight segments. 2. Apply a fillet of radius X to each of the corners between segments. 3. Convert the polyline to a NURBs curve. 4. Duplicate & 3d-move the NURBs curve 5. Create a loft object using those two NURBS curves. Now I have my finished object. But what if I think ... actually that fillet radius is a bit too small and I want to change it to Y instead of X? Essentially I have to start again. Even if I've kept the cures during the loft procedure; even if I've kept a copy of the polyline from step 1. I have to go back to step 1. I have to do the fillet operation, and then every single subsequent operation again. This is very different to being able to go back into the history of an object, change a single variable, then have the object re-generate itself accordingly.

Fair enough - it sounds like the integration between C4D and VW is pretty close.

If you edited that 3d polygon in the VW model, then you'd re-export that polygon by itself to C4D, is that right, and then replace the previous version with the new one? And would you need to re-assign the noise pattern that determines the scatter, or is it all more automated than that? Say I had planted (in C4D) a small shrub somewhere on that surface, in a particular XYZ location. If my new version of the 3d polygon had a different Z value where I want the shrub to be, would I have to manually move the shrub to the right height or would that be an automatic process?

Thanks, interesting! Am I right to understand that the filleted edges, you did those by sectioning with a NURBs surface rather than the fillet tool? Why was that? One of the things I can imagine wanting to do with something like this, is go back and change the radius of those filleted edges. How possible would that be? One of the problems with NURBs is that you can construct them from some basic geometry (straight lines, arcs and so on) and then compose that all together and then convert the resulting polyline into a NURBs. But this is one of the points where you can't then go backwards: you can't go back and change the radius of one of the arcs in the original geometry. And it's very difficult (often impossible) to do so accurately within the reshaping options for a NURBs curve.

I'm sort of interested in what this actually means and looks like. To get to its original shape do you mean, you double click on the solid, "edit solid" and then can repeat and carry on through all the operations, back to an initial extruded rectangle or something like that? If the original shape is an extruded rectangle, can you go back to it, change its dimensions a little, and then return to the end result, with slightly different dimensions?

Yes you can get quite a lot of steps (in theory) but like you say, isn't always very reliable. And often once you are so many steps back, what you are looking at is rather abstract and you can lose track of what you are actually doing. A few years ago we got the "edit features" option, along with a rather dishonest marketing video that made it look much more useful than it actually is.

Don't know how correctly I am using the terminology but essentially the idea that if you have taken steps 1 to 20 to build your finished object, you can go back and change step 5 slightly without having to re-do any of steps 6-20. And that you can do this in a reasonably convenient way. VW sort-of maintains history for some operations, although it's often very inconvenient to go back more than a few steps and still understand what's happening. There are some operations like extrude-along-path where you can post-edit the path and profile but again doing so is not made at all easy or convenient. And some like the loft tool where there's no going back once you've pressed the button. People also use the term parametric modelling, and of course we can do that with many architectural objects in VW but not really with VW's solid modelling tools.

Can you do non-destructive modelling/editing in Rhino or Grasshopper (I have never used either)? That's the big limitation of many of VW's solid modelling functions.

What I can see happening is that the "wide flange" object disappears when you put it into a group. It looks like you are putting it into a group that's on a different layer from the one it's in initially. Might that layer be set up with a different "scale"? Can't say much about the "things converting to 3d" bacause we can't see that happening in your screen recording.

That depends entirely on the kind of architecture you want to represent (and how you want to represent it).

I am a bit confused about what Redshift actually is, when you use it inside VW. When it was introduced it was presented as something that might improve the rendering experience. But it didn't take me long to try it a few times and realise it just took loads longer than regular renderworks & didn't seem to provide a better output. So is it that it basically doesn't work as it's supposed to, and we just don't speak about it? Or is it that its intended purpose is something I don't understand?

Seeing as "sets" of sheet layers already exists in the "Publish" context perhaps that could simply be expanded to be usable for general file navigation/organisation.

I mean if the layer names don't lend themselves to filtering - then you have to use tags or suchlike. I can't bulk-select a bunch of layers and put them within a filter for example. Usually I'll have a load of sheet layers that have a descriptive title (like "First Floor GA" or "Window Schedule") and a three digit sheet number. These are the sheets that get issued for a tender issue or construction issue or whatever. It would often be useful just to see them (and exclude all the other sheet layers I might have set up) but they don't necessarily have anything in common that makes it easy to filer them out.

I've never used layer filters but this thread has made me think maybe I should. If I want to quickly make a bunch of existing sheet layers choosable via a filter, I need to give them all a certain tag and then filter by that tag, is that right? If we were to be able to "group" layers then I don't think it can work like classes with '-' separators in the titles, because those titles may well be used within title blocks, where you want to be free to name as you wish.

Do you mean the objects themselves are changing or do you mean the view you are looking at them in is changing?

That was going to be my next question. But yes there are some cases where you want more control, and what VW automatically gives you has too many lines, or similar .... which is why it was on my to-do list to check out using 2d components in sections/elevations. (A bit of a road-block for me is that it seems to be all or nothing with 2d components, and I don't like what happens to certain VW plugins like windows when they are displayed with 2d components)

Yes, can confirm I see different behaviour 2023 vs 2024. I'm curious why you draw the geometry for the carcass behind, into the 2d component, when it will never be seen? Or is it sometimes shown without the doors, via class visibilities or something like that? It seems that it's not just that it's failing to give the 2d objects any fill, because if I give them coloured fills these show up, and occlude each other as expected. It's lines that show up when they aren't supposed to.