line-weight

Yes - fairly sure this is not what I am finding happening. The walls' top and bottom bounds are set by storey levels and there are no component offsets. I've not yet had time to see if I can get it to happen in a new file.

I'm having this problem at the moment in VW2025. I have walls whose top & bottom are well above the layer elevation. When I try and insert a styled door, it is inserted at 0 elevation (or sometimes something else?) instead at the Z value of the bottom of the wall. I then have to manually adjust the Z height of the door to make it appear in the wall.

I think that's a slightly different issue - it may be true that the contours from the surveyor already include rounding errors compared to the original data - but as I understand it, a 3d poly with a Z value used as source data for a site model, should translate its vertices exactly into a series of points with that Z value and these will be on the surface of the site model. So if you ask the site model for a contour at that Z height, it should come out exactly as per the source data. See attached file, pink lines are the source polygons. SMcontours.vwx

It will probably be easier to help if you can post a file containing the site model plus your contours? Have you made sure that the site model contour intervals are set to exactly the same intervals as the ones you're using as the source? It looks to me a bit like it is interpolating new contours in between them.

I'm resurrecting this thread because this continues to be a problem - in Horizontal Sections, wall caps fail to get drawn on component based walls, unless I am missing something. Attached is a new file, here are two screenshots. Both walls have components - the left hand simply has one component rather than none). Would like to check it's not just me - before I report this as a bug because that's what I think it is. wallcaps HS v2.vwx

Question is, how to do this exactly? I realised that I can find a numerical value for the angle between project & true north here: I then manually drew a line at that angle from project north, which lets me find true north in the drawing: And now I have something to align my north-points and heliodons to. It feels like it should be much simpler than this though...VW knows where true north is, so it should be able to align objects with it.

yes I feel that "corrupted" drawing files are less often a problem than in the past.

Also... the 3d preview is kind of useless because it doesn't know where the back of the sill is actually going to end up, so just draws it in some default location, which makes the preview image misleading and confusing.

Against my better judgement I thought I'd try to get some sills working, and of course just ended up completely wasting an hour+ of my day. ^ worth noting that: a masonry sill aligns with the external face of the core component a timber sill aligns with the internal face of the core component a brick sill aligns with the external face of the core component This urgently needs improvement... we should be able to do what @Tom W. says above, and also, if the behaviour of aligning relative to the core component remains, then this needs to be indicated on the diagram in the window sill settings dialogue because otherwise everyone that tries to use this is inevitably going to be frustrated and confused.

A bit of both. In practice, when I want a certain resource, I usually just go and grab it from another project where I know it exists. This doesn't feel like more effort than going to my favourites, especially if it turns out I've forgotten to save it in there, or what's in there is an out of date version because I've since improved it. If there were something I'd really like AI to do...it would be for it to work in the background keeping my resources organised and up to date.

I don't find it's a big deal generally. Deleting stuff is mostly just select all + press delete. The alternative is that with each project I work on, and build new resources or evolve my setup strategy, I have to remember to somehow import all this into my template file. To me that feels like more of a pain.

When I start a new project, I have a habit of just taking a file from a previous job, deleting all the geometry and reusing it for the new one. I'm aware that one can set up "template" files but, well, I've always been too lazy to do so. My ideal file setup is always evolving so it seems to make most sense just to re-use the setup from one of my most recent files. Other than having to manually remove drawing geometry etc, is there any major downside to the way I do it? One thing that I worry about is that corruptions can build up in the file if it's effectively the same one migrated through many versions of Vectorworks. So, occasionally I start a fresh one. But the same would potentially be an issue with template files, or is there something special about them that would prevent this?

The 27" 4K external display presumably being a crucial part of that!

Maybe it's just that I'm so used to using VW on a desktop with large screen, but I recently tried using it on a 13" macbook (retina display) and found it awful - nowhere near enough screen area left over once all the palettes are there, to work comfortably.

Cmd-L rotates the object rather than the viewpoint.

I normally only use VW on my desktop but am in the process of installing it on a laptop too. Is there a quick/easy way to make the setup on the laptop match my desktop setup as closely as possible, or do I need to somehow manually copy across things like custom workspaces, plugins, preferences etc?

The loft tool gives you a preview of the starting vertex, and the ability to adjust it so as to match vertexes between the two polygons as you wish. However...this reminds me of a limitation of the loft tool, which is that even if you choose "ruled" it doesn't create a solid that is made of of triangulated flat faces - you get something like this: And you can see it creates four-sided faces which are not flat. Quite often I don't want that - I want flat faces. I've never really used the multiple extrude tool before. Looks like it can nearly do what I'd want but unfortunately doesn't let you match starting vertices in the same way that the loft tool does.

Any thoughts on this..... ?

This is a screenshot from a georeferenced file, where "project north" doesn't match actual north. The compass ring is very handy for keeping on top of what direction everything is - I like that I can always see where real north is, regardless of the orientation I'm looking at the drawing in. But is there any way to draw anything in the file, in such a way that it's exactly aligned with real north? The north point tool seems unaware of where real north is. And so do heliodons. I'd kind of assumed part of the point of georeferencing was so that these kinds of objects would automatically point the right direction. Anyway, they don't, but I can't work out how I can rotate them to exactly the right angle, other than by some very tedious process of pasting a map or plan with north marked on it, into the file, and then manually rotating it to match the model. The pink line in the screenshot is drawn by a version of that process, and then I have to line my heliodons up with that. But am I missing something?

Did you ever resolve this @Christiaan?

I'm having these problems again now; erratic behaviour of heliodons. Solved (temporarily) by moving them onto a new layer and deleting the old one. There is definitely some kind of bug.

No I don't believe it's been addressed. It constantly annoys me too and if there are any workarounds I'd also like to know about them.

I'm considering submitting this as a bug. Is it reasonable to consider it as such? I consistently get this message when I try and save a large-ish file I'm working on: There is plenty of space (>400GB) on the (external) disk the file is saved on. There is a lack of space on the hard disk, but this is because VW has eaten up everything available with its swap files. I assume that this then prevents something like a temporary version of the file being put on the hard disk in the process of saving. I can save it by doing a "save as" and then saving on top of the most recent save, saying yes it's ok to replace the previous file. Shouldn't VW be clever enough to leave enough space on the HD that it can do whatever it needs to do, in order to routinely save a file? I know that it could release some of that space if it wanted to, because when I re-open the same file, it doesn't use up that much space to begin with, it slowly creeps up during the session. This behaviour has been going on for several releases, and it's been raised before, but the complaints are always ignored. Am I being unreasonable in expecting an application to be able to manage memory use such that it doesn't prevent itself from being able to save an open file?

Have tested this for a week or so and my conclusion is that it makes no discernable difference.

This is what I see too. I even do it myself! Recent jobs, on site the contractors use a mix of pdfs on phones and printed drawings. I don't see them with a tablet. A tablet doesn't fit in your pocket. Contractors also want discussions on whatsapp rather than email, so they can take photos (or screenshot bits of drawings), scribble on them and drop them into a conversation without needing to be in an office.