Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by line-weight

  1. 26 minutes ago, Benson Shaw said:

    A vwx loft seems to "pull" the surface edges a little tighter than corresponding NURBS curve guides, eg the visible outer curve (green) of the side bank. Also, there is some faceting of the horizontal surface, especially noticeable as a fold near the foot of the ramp.  Who knows, maybe these imperfections in vwx NURBS will never be resolved.


    yes, this is one of the problems with this kind of method in VW, you don't really have full control of exactly what path the curves end up following. As you say, it's visible in plan at the top of the ramp, in the "outer" curve lines which aren't at right angles to the end of the ramp and this becomes a problem if you want a proper tangential transition between one section of ramp and another. I think the best you can do is get it nearly right via a bit of trial and error.


    The method described by @axhake in the thread I linked to further up addresses this which is why I'd recommend anyone who needs to produce properly accurate models to have a close look at it.


    @Benson Shaw hope this doesn't come across as criticism of your suggested solutions; the problems are ones caused by the way VW works.

  2. That seems a sensible way of producing a "good enough" result but I think I'm right in saying that it doesn't create a ramp that is perfectly level side to side all the way along (this can be seen by making a section through it, perpendicular to its centre line, at various points). Achieving this in fact is one of the things that's more tricky than it forst appears, when making something like this.


    Interesting you think the faceting is less bad than previous versions @Benson Shaw - are you sure though? I can still see it, and one of the problems which the faceting causes, which is that it's virtually impossible to make two perfectly matching curved edges from NURBS curves, is visible in this model if you look at the join between the "core" ramp and the sloping side that you add in your last step. If you zoom in you can see this in OpenGL view, and you can also see it in a section (even with 3d conversion set to "very high".


    Images below are a cross-section taken from the model.



    • Like 2
  3. You want to do something that is actually a bit tricky in Vectorworks, more so than it first appears, for a number of reasons.


    However .... have a read of this thread:


    And if you can make sense of that, also have a look at the method described here by @axhake:




    If you are a beginner in VW you might find some of that a bit hard to follow, but you might also learn quite a bit of useful stuff!


    It's possible there is a simpler way to deal with your particular problem that would be "good enough", but if you want to do it accurately I'd suggest you look at these links.



    • Like 1
  4. 3 hours ago, Tom W. said:


    That’s absolutely true but you’re talking about accepting different levels of precision/tolerance which applies to everything to different degrees. The model in your case is still correct, the design just needs to build-in a reasonable degree of tolerance so that subsequent features don’t rely on that column being positioned millimeter perfect, and that it being out by an inch or two is factored-in when it comes to sizing the kitchen or whatever that’s being placed next to it. The model is still the reference point from which the on-site construction is measured. I’m talking about circumstances where the model cannot be used as a reliable source of reference in the same way, even at design stage where you have to remember that what you’ve modelled is an interpretation of the real conditions + dimension-critical things like kitchens, bathrooms, fitted joinery, etc need to be sized based on the survey dimensions rather than the model dimensions. 


    Once VW has a ‘Convert Point Cloud to BIM Model’ button + the wall/slab/roof tools are sophisticated enough to allow us to model things as they actually are then this won’t be such an issue of course 🙂


    Yes sure - I get what you are saying. The problem you describe is additional to the one I describe.


    But each case is covered by sensible annotation - additional information that can't really be contained in the drawing geometry itself. So, that's why I find it hard to see a world where everyone can simply scale off a model. But perhaps ways of annotating the model in 3d space will develop...perhaps I can ask an element for its dimensional setting-out information and it will tell me what it should be set out relative to.


    I'd be quite pleased to see the need for 2d sheets disappear (I think).

    • Like 1
  5. Even with a brand new building ... with a theoretically perfect BIM model ... there will be inaccuracies in what actually gets built, and that's why it's so important for dimensioning always to be relative to the appropriate reference points.


    The structural frame gets built with one column 50mm out ... there will be certain critical things that need to be set out relative to that column, and if you measure from the "as built" column position you'll be ok, but if you measure from some other part of the building, you'll be 50mm away from where the thing actually needs to be.


    Same basic principle applies whether the 'model' is in 3d or 2d.


    Architecture (and I guess civil engineering to some extent?) is quite different from things like product manufacture in this way ... there is a different expectation of precision, and i think people from other disciplines don't always realise this.

    • Like 1
  6. Most architects have a standard note on their drawings telling contractors not to scale directly off the drawing, for good reasons. It's already possible for errors to occur this way on 2d drawings, and so I don't see why you couldn't have the same principle on a 3d model - refer only to explicitly stated dimensions and take the model as a general indication of how things are arranged rather than assuming every last dimension is accurate enough for construction purposes.

  7. 16 hours ago, Ian M. said:

    I am still on Vectorworks 2019 with latest updates, and I am finding that the screen does not refresh after I make a change, edit, etc.  I have to pan, zoom, etc. in order for the change to be displayed.


    Vectorworks crashes when I try to import .rvt files


    I don't think 2019 is supported to work in Monterey. At least not according to the VW system requirements page.



  8. I would go with windoor if it seems to work better than the native tools, because even if it never gets updated from now on, we have no news on when the native tools will ever get improved, and I'm putting my money on "no time soon".

    • Like 2
  9. @Jesse Cogswell sorry for the delay but I've now had a chance to test this out (in VW2021) and as far as I can see all is working perfectly . Thank you for the additional changes - the ability to bulk-copy from multiple saved views will be a massive time-saver for me.


    It takes a while to do its stuff (about 30 seconds when I tested it doing 15 saved views/viewports) but my guess is that this is Vectorworks itself, creating the viewports in what is quite a large model, rather than a slowness in the script.


    Thanks again for this.

  10. No, you don't have to pay for it. It's included for free with 2022. I've not yet had time to experiment with it a lot, but it does look better than the "standard" window and door tools (it would be difficult for anything to be worse). It's designed mainly for an Oz/NZ market I think and I've yet to see whether that matters, for users in other regions.


    On your question about windowsills, someone might correct me but I think they still don't work properly.

    • Like 2
  11. I am not sure what the answer is, but I will be interested to hear what people have to say, as this is something I've wondered about too - will 3d CAD drawings potentially have an even shorter "easily readable" lifespan than 2d ones have? At least with 2d sheets you can convert to pdf and not really lose any information.


    I know there's such a thing as a 3d pdf ... but not much about what it really is.

  12. Some years ago, Sketchup showed everyone that basic 3d modelling didn't have to be as difficult as most AEC type packages made it seem, and of course in the process they influenced (for the better) how software like VW deals with 3d (although, here's my opportunity to grumble that VW's push-pull tool still doesn't work properly, more than a decade after Sketchup made theirs).


    A few years back I spent quite a bit of time considering whether I should switch from VW to Sketchup, and in the end I stayed with VW just because it's designed with architecture in mind and it allows me to do many of the tedious but important bits of the workflow properly (mainly, setting out sheets, and generating sections properly-ish).


    I think that there are some architects who manage to use Sketchup but I don't think it's very common, and it kind of appears that maybe there's just not a big enough market for someone to build a fully functional AEC version of Sketchup.


    So it will be interesting to see if any of these companies like Epic attempt to build a full package for AEC use but it seems unlikely they will, for reasons already discussed upthread.


    It really would be great if someone were to build, from the ground up, and making full use of current technology, something that could do everything that VW does, but much better, and with no legacy baggage, and I'm sure that would be entirely possible in theory, but maybe the market is not big enough to make it worthwhile for anyone.


    I've mentioned before, the Affinity apps that were built from scratch to become nearly as capable as Photoshop etc, but available at much lower cost. They have their problems but it was interesting to me that a seemingly relatively small team were able to build something to match what is a pretty complex piece of software evolved over a timespan of decades.

  13. These realistic real-time renderings have a completely different purpose to what things like architectural construction drawings do. So I'm not sure if they are really all that relevant as a comparison. Are hyper-realistic renderings of much use in conveying construction info? Most of the "information" they add is not actually useful for this purpose.


    That said, it does seem a pretty poor show that all this detail can be rendered in real time while I still have to sit and wait for VW to update a section viewport.

    • Like 4
  14. Roof tool - useless except for very low level of detail at small scale


    Roof face tool - somewhat useful sometimes, borderline whether it saves much pain compared to modelling from scratch. I sometimes use two or three roof face objects (ceiling, internal components, external layer) on top of each other as others have described upthread.


    And yes the roof face tool is a classic example of vectorworks 90% functional = 90% useless. With some improvements it could become much more useful.

  15. 1 hour ago, Mark Aceto said:

    Happy anniversary to the 3Dconnexion macOS driver that used to be updated 3x / year before Monterey!




    Yes, it's a little worrying isn't it?


    I think I am currently using the "beta" for Big Sur that still hasn't got beyond that status...


    You prompted me to look at the thread on the 3dx forum...looks like they night actually release something soon.



    • Like 1
  16. I'm quite often working on files where I originally created horizontal sections, but they are just "regular" sections rather than the newer "horizontal section" type of viewport. And I'd like to change them into that newer type, because it makes it much easier to control cut plane height and so on. Is there a way of doing that (so I can preserve things like annotations), or do I have to essentially create a new viewport to do this?

  17. I have been finding that my approach of having one storey, and assigning all layers to that storey works ok. I don't even use layer elevations; they are all set to zero so that I can copy & paste objects between layers without them jumping in Z height. The objects that can be, are bound by levels.


    Doesn't work so well when I want to copy things between storeys and I *do* want the z height to be automatically changed. So would probably not be good for buildings with many repetitive storeys.


    And I don't have to worry about IFC export stuff.


    I wish more objects could have their Z elevation set relative to levels.

  18. 14 hours ago, techdef said:


    Am I the only one who would use this?

    No, I can see why what you want would be useful.


    I'm assuming that your core runs through multiple storeys that don't necessarily have the same floor-floor height, and that's why you can't just set the height of the walls manually? And I assume you want to keep the walls within the symbol so that if you move, say, a door opening position at one level, it's replicated across all levels.


    My solution to this might be to have a symbol where the wall was set to the lowest wall height needed on any of the storeys, and then on storeys where the floor-floor height was greater and hence gaps were left, I'd manually add sections of wall spanning between the top of one symbol and the bottom of the one above. And I'd hope that all repeating door, window openings etc could be contained within the portions of wall that were in the symbol.

  • Create New...