Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by line-weight

  1. This is because of American English spellings. In proper English, the level of a building is called a storey, and the plural of storey is storeys. In American English they spell it story and stories. So that will be one reason it didn't appear as a search result.
  2. Well, it's disappointing to find that this is still a problem in VW2021. The push pull tool is regularly failing to 'find' surfaces unless I do various workarounds like changing viewpoint, making the object selected, and so on. This is not in a complex file. No weird imports. Mainly just solids and some standard PIOs like walls and slabs.
  3. I currently use a "material class" to control the fill and the section-plane lineweight of any object when it appears in a non-merged section. The object's fill and lineweight are set to be "by class". It seems that if I give that object a material, then its fill in section is controlled by its material, rather than its class attributes. Is that right? But its lineweight in section is still controlled by class attributes. Is that right? So, let's say that I want to change that object to a different material, one that I want to show with a different fill and different lineweight in section. I have to go to the object, and change its material, and also change its class. Is that correct? So it seems that if I want to have control over lineweight and fill in section, every object has to have a material and also a "material class" or at least a "lineweight class".
  4. I'd be quite impressed with any application that could draw roof tiles fully correctly. It would have to know how to set them out across the roof slope, keeping within max/min cover dimensions, and it would have to know about details at ridge and eaves which might involve special-size tiles. And ideally it would draw battens and know about tilting fillets and all this kind of thing. For vertical walls it would have to know how to draw the details around window openings, etc.
  5. I wouldn't quite agree with this - I'd say the interface is "adequate" in section up to say 1:100 scale or maybe 1:50 for GA type drawings. And I would in some cases be able to draw it more correctly manually. It depends on the construction type really... there are some interfaces that you might manage to get drawn sufficiently correctly for a construction detail, and some you can't.
  6. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I hadn't realised about the right-click option. Thanks for pointing that out. As you say, it highlights all faces of the feature and this is more useful in giving a visual clue of what's happening. I think it would be helpful if that was the highlighting you got when you hover the cursor, before right-clicking. I still think it would be helpful for the prompt to say something like "added extrude" or "subtracted extrude". By way of example... see the attached video. Two identical cubes, but one has been created from an addition and one from a subtraction. You can see that in "edit feature" mode, none of the prompts or highlighting gives me any clue that the two objects have been created differently. Screen Recording 2021-02-26 at 09.50.27.mov
  7. I have to say - and I spend plenty of time on here complaining about VW's many, intensely frustrating, limitations - for me, I've found it doesn't negate the advantages. I drew in 2d for many years, starting on paper, and have some pride in my 2d drafting abilities. But having forced myself to transition to a 3d workflow - I just wouldn't go back now. I've recently spend some time doing a bit of external work for another practice which still draws in 2d, and found it really tedious going back to that method. You can choose where you draw the line between 3d and 2d. I'd say it's quite feasible to draw up to a scale of 1:100 or maybe 1:50 in 3d without needing to go and mess around in annotations. This I'd have to say, means me accepting a few compromises in the quality of the output (I could make a somewhat nicer drawing manually, but having got various things worked out, the difference is now fairly marginal). Then at closer scales, it's up to you whether you want to take a hybrid approach (which is what I do), do it purely in 2d, or maybe do it in 2d traced off the basic geometry of a generated section. The benefits of the 3d workflow aren't just in the speed of final output - it's the whole process. Examining details in 3d I find really helpful. It makes it much more natural to think through things like assembly sequence. That's just me of course. But I'm someone who's spent plenty of time working in the 2d world, and I understand the methods and benefits of that mode of drawing. Like I say, I wouldn't go back now. The transition was really rather painful but I'm glad I did it. My only caveat might be - I do small-ish projects where it's just me working on the drawings. For bigger, multi user projects, maybe it would be a different story.
  8. Let us know the outcome of this process!
  9. Yup it completely falls over for this kind of thing. You will get very limited automation of actual realistic construction connections. None, perhaps. Nonetheless, I've found that a hybrid approach works ok and I think it saves me time over drawing purely in 2d.
  10. I never realised that was an option. It would be quite handy if it worked! I agree the tiles appear to be upside down. What happens if the roof is sectioned parallel rather than perpendicular to the ridge? Does VW know to draw the tiles differently or will it still draw them in the same way?
  11. This is specifically about navigation in a 3d perspective OpenGL view, using a 3dconnexion wired Spacemouse Pro device. It's not a problem with simple models. However, on two separate, relatively large/complex models drawn in VW2018 and imported to VW2021, I find that navigating them with the 3dconnexion device is considerably less smooth in VW2021 than it is in VW2018. There is a lot of jerking and stuttering. Given that 2021 is supposed to have had various improvements to the graphics module since 2018, it's obviously rather disappointing that it produces a worse experience, using the exact same hardware and same file. While I'm aware that problems might be arising from the 3dC device/driver, rather than Vectorworks, the only thing that has changed is Vectorworks. It produces good results with 2018 so why not 2021? I'm wondering if there are any suggestions as to settings that I could try fiddling with - I think I've tried all the obvious ones. And is it possible that it's connected with the files having been imported rather than originated and drawn in VW2021?
  12. Thought I might have imagined this. But no, here it is, in the VW2020 "what's new" brochure. That history menu in the top left - that's just fictional right? It doesn't actually exist anywhere in the application? Or am I missing something?
  13. I can see how it might be useful for these purposes (calculating volume etc). If it were simply the case that it was an attribute that is assigned to an object to define what it's made of, that all makes sense. Because the 'materials' concept seems to be presented/promoted with the ability to have things like textures, hatches and so on associated with them, that misleads users to think that they are intended to be used as the primary way to determine the appearance of objects in sections, renderings, and so on. But they can't really be used like that, because you'll need some parallel classing system to cover all the elements that can't use 'materials'.
  14. I didn't even know you could get VW to draw a layer of tiles like that. My approach in that scenario is that they are drawn just as a double line element in small scale drawings (here the section is taken directly from the model, where the tile layer is just modelled as a plane with a thickness), and then on large scale detail drawings, they are drawn on manually in annotation layer, onto a section where some elements are taken directly from the model and some aren't (see screenshots below by way of example). I don't think VW is anywhere near intelligent enough to lay out things like roof tiles in such a way that you could actually use them as detailed construction info. You might be better off starting a dedicated thread for this though. The specific problem you identify may be a bug/design defect - bring it up in the troubleshooting forum. If it is a bug/defect, you can look forward to it being fixed 5 years from now, or never.
  15. This is what I found too. I had to untick the option, same as described. But now it works, even if I re-tick the option. In other words I can't now replicate it. I wonder if it's something that only happens once, on a newly installed installation? I have only just started using VW2021 and am in the process of sorting out my workspace. I'm on mac.
  16. There's a fair bit of careful thinking to be done about this I think, in order to come up with a consistent/usable system. For example, is white painted plasterboard the same "material" as blue painted plasterboard or a different one? Or is the plasterboard one material and the paint another? Is sanded varnished pine the same or different material as rough-sawn pine? As far as my current material-class system is concerned, I've chosen to treat these kinds of scenarios as different materials, whereas maybe someone else would choose to have a material class that then somehow had different finishes assigned to it on a per-object basis.
  17. Looks to me like there's no point in trying to start using "materials" unless they can be applied to any and everything. Until that happens, it's just another organisational thing to try and keep on top of, in parallel with classes. A question: why not allow users to say that attributes of a class are to be determined by a material? This is kind of what I initially imagined this was. I currently use "material classes" and each of these, I have to set up all the graphics attributes and textures manually. What would be really useful, would just to have an option to set all these, in one click or tick box, to follow a "material". Essentially a bunch of settings I can have saved as a resource. But maybe this misunderstands the concept.
  18. This doesn't really answer your questions...but one reason it's difficult to give you answers on the more general ones about whether you should swap, is that I've only really ever used VW for a 3d bim-like workflow. I used Autocad in the ancient 2d past, and I used Archicad briefly also in the distant past, and I have flirted a little with Sketchup but not for serious production drawings. The reason I've stuck with VW is because the effort of changing is so large - not just learning the new programme but having a period projects are running in both applications and so on. I doubt I'm alone in this. So, I don't have much to compare with. Perhaps I have been stuck with an abusive partner for 20 years and just don't realise that it doesn't have to be this way. Or perhaps my notion that I could start a more rewarding relationship with something that looks attractive from a distance is just a grass-is-greener fantasy. I think this is a real problem choosing between CAD programmes actually - and it limits how much trust you can put in reviews, because the only people who really know how good something is are those who use it day in and day out, and few people have the time or brain space to do that with more than one application. So... some of the questions you ask, like "reference plane" objects - well, I have my own ways of trying to keep a handle on that sort of thing, but am unaware of whether these methods would just seem ridiculous to a Revit user. Or do I imagine in my head that Revit probably has much better methods, but a regular user would tell me all the ways that they are limited in their practical usefulness? Also, there is loads of stuff I do in VW that I probably do sub-optimally, and that's the big downside of its flexibility and lack of a "proper" way of doing many things. I might happen to stumble on a better way of doing something (often via posts on here) or I might not. It's not a case of just reading the manual. Most of the above is not very useful commentary for you. One thing I could say though; when I went through the painful process of transitioning from a 2d to 3d (BIM-ish) workflow I think I was overly worried about keeping things under control using reference levels and that sort of thing. I set up a system where I had geometry guidelines all over the place, but actually, in practice, it seems to be the case that VW is fairly tolerant of slightly messy procedures. Once I stopped stressing so much about keeping everything under control, things were better. For example, I'd try and avoid snapping things to other objects, instead preferring to have safely locked reference objects, and adjusting things relative to those wherever possible. Because habits from years of 2d drafting had told me that if I repeatedly snap things to each other, errors gradually build up. Well, I find that in practice I can actually get away with a few "bad habits". The thing that I've found most beneficial to pin down is a system of how you view the working model in 3d, and control visibilities. I make quite extensive use of saved views. The way I organise the model is quite centred on making it easy to navigate and edit. Small things like: I use a layer for each storey, and each storey has the geometry of its floor and the storey below's ceiling on it. This is simply because I can then isolate a single storey (by turning other layers off), and it's much more convenient to be able to look down into it with no "roof" on it. That's why its ceiling belongs to the storey above. But I'm starting to ramble on about my own, possibly eccentric system, because this is not an approach that's specifically advised in any VW guidance, and the fact that I can have this approach is simultaneously VW's greatest benefit and greatest weakness.
  19. Some thoughts on some of these changes. I made a new thread so as not to make this one too rambling.
  20. I've just spent some time fiddling with the "edit features" option that's been added to the editing of solids histories. Some comments - 1. I think calling it "edit features" is misleading. It gives the impression that you can edit various features of the solid independently and in a non destructive way. But that's not what you are doing. You are editing the steps that have been used to create the final solid. They happen in a sequence and the sequence is significant to the end result. They are not necessarily independent 'features'. I know Vectorworks and its ways, and it took me a little while to understand what was actually happening when I chose a "feature" to edit. It's simply taking you back to a step in the edit history. One consequnec of this is that certain other "features" do or don't vanish, according to where they are in the edit history. I would imagine it's entirely baffling to a new VW user. 2. The cursor prompts that I'm given after I choose "edit features" are not that useful. Let's say I have a cube to which I've added a cylinder somewhere and subtracted a cylinder somewhere else. And then I've applied a fillet. I therefore have 3 "features" that I can edit. So I hover the cursor over the object - if I hover over the filleted edge, the prompt says "fillet". But if I hover over the added cyclinder, or the hole from the subtracted one, it just says "extrude". That's not very helpful. Why can't it say "added solid" and "subtracted solid"? Furthermore, what it highlights in red is not the whole of the added object, or the whole of the hole... it's the individual faces. That adds another layer of uncertainty - does it matter which face I click on? If I click on the faces of the inside of the whole, am I clicking on the solid that's been subtracted from or the solid that's been subtracted? 3. It's a bit disappointing that I'm not given any kind of edit history. I'd actually been led to believe we were getting something like that, from some of the initial promo stuff. I thought maybe we'd be given a kind of edit tree, a list with each subtraction, addition, fillet, etc listed in order. A visual guide to what order everything happened in, and which bit we were currently modifying. Something like this would be really useful for complex objects where it's hard to keep track of what's happened in which order. As an aside - it's really stupid and confusing to call the result of a fillet operation a "fillet". No, the fillet is the fillet, the thing that's been applied to an edge. I might have a complicated object with multiple additions and subtractions, and one minor filleted edge somewhere, and this complex object is called a "fillet" in the OIP. At least call it something like a "filleted object". Why does this matter? Well, just for example: if I want to use the "edit features" approach to change the fillet on that object, what do I do? I double-click, choose edit feature, hover over the filleted edge itself which highlights red and click on it. What happens? Actually nothing happens, because the fillet was the most recent operation, and what is sitting there is what Vectorworks calls a "fillet" and all I need to do is change the "radius" value in its OIP. What would happen in a programme that was designed not to be confusing? I think ths is what would happen: -the object would be called something like a "filleted object" and maybe the box in the OIP would say "fillet radius" OR the object would be called something like "editable solid", and I would need to ask to edit it before being presented with the option to change the fillet radius - either way, if I choose "edit features" and then highlight the filleted edge, it is in some way made obvious to me, where I change the value for the fillet radius, and I do it and it takes effect. As far as I can see, this "edit features" functionality doesn't really change or improve anything about the method used to modify solids with edit histories. It's just offering a shorcut to get to somewhere in fewer clicks. That's good of course, and for someone who already understands VW solid modelling it's useful and I'll make use of it, but it offers nothing to a new user in terms of making things more intuitive or less confusing.
  21. For what it's worth...I've just tried to replicate this, without success.
  22. Am I right in thinking that 3dconnexion basically have a monopoly on navigator things of the type they make? I feel a bit uncomfortable that I have become rather dependent on my 3dconnexion device and am basically at their mercy when it comes to drivers and things being kept functional.
  23. The point is that if you have what's effectively the wireframe of the solid you want ... it's frustrating that there isn't a one-click command to do just that. If you could, then it would just be a matter of doing that, then extruding the bottom horizontal face of that solid to the ground. I often come up against something like this when importing a supposed 'BIM' model of some product or the other, that comes through as a kind of mesh, or other mess of polygons. And it looks like it ought to be possible just to tell VW to change it into a solid object that would then be easy to modify, section and so on. But it seems it's not.


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...