line-weight

It looks like maybe I can do it in a kind of hacky way by using the "rail" element to make the panels, because it allows an overshoot beyond the post face.

Another question though - is there any way I can make the posts and panels overlap? For example, if I want something like what's in the image above, where the panels slot into recesses in the posts?

Am I right to understand that although we can create a completely custom "infill" based on a 3d symbol, we can't do the same for the posts? We can create a custom 2d profile for the posts but they can only ever be simple extrudes? In other words, if I want a post that tapers from top to bottom, has a turned (ie swept) profile, or has a finial on top, that can't currently be modelled within the fence tool? Ok - ignore my question above - I've just realised that yes I can use a 3d symbol for fenceposts!

Can you post a file where this is not working for you?

The "profile" line doesn't actually work in the way that I think most users would expect. If you choose "seperate cross sections" and "use attributes of original objects" VW seperates everything into two types: what it calls "structural objects" and "non structural objects". It will draw the profile line only around "structural objects", not around "non structural objects". Because your object is deemed a "non structural object" it doesn't get a profile line. If you go to the object's OIP you will see that there is a box at the bottom called "Merge with structural objects in sections": If you tick that box you'll find that your object gains a profile line. There are two things that I think are confusing: 1) What VW deems to be "structural" or "non structural" is somewhat obscure 2) That "Merge with Structural objects in sections" tick-box is misleadingly named - it really should say "treat this object as structural". Additionally, the functionality of drawing a profile line only around certain objects isn't, in my opinion useful - it doesn't match any drawing convention that I'm familiar with, but others may differ. I made a fairly detailed thread complaining about this a few years ago:

It's not entirely clear what your question is - are you asking whether you can use a stylus within VW? I think you can but VW is not all that well setup for freehand drawing so it might be more efficient to do the tracing in another application and then import into VW. When you talk about comparing to the present day survey do you mean just manually or do you mean turning each into a 3d object to allow a more visual comparison of the differences? I think the latter would be quite easy - as long as you can import the contours for each as vector geometry you can make a site model for each.

I have recently converted a relatively large file such that object visibilities are controlled by Data Visualisation rather than by Class visibility. This works ok and the new setup has various advantages. However, I've noticed that if I switch from one DV to another, it takes VW a few seconds to think about it and update the drawing. With class visibilities, the change would be virtually instantaneous - at least, after I had already switched a couple of times, suggesting that some kind of caching was going on in order to facilitate this. In both cases, I am switching via saved views. It would be great if DVs could be made to apply as quickly as class visibilities. Being able to flip back and forth between two states is very valuable when checking for differences/alignments etc.

Here's what I get - Screen Recording 2025-05-07 at 20.59.10.mov

I was wondering if it might be possible at least to extract the 2d path of the old object, and use that to as the path of the replacement new one.

I've just started using the new fence tool. I have a file full of old "railing/fence" objects. Is there any straightforward way to convert them into "new" fence objects, or is that just asking for trouble?

When I hover the cursor over the "gravity button" as described above, VW gives me hint text titled "gate configuration". I assume this is not supposed to happen?

Selecting "no" seems to work for me too, whereas "yes" sends the objects off to some distant location. I always forget which is the right answer if I've not used it for a bit. Unfortunately there's not a "never project pasted objects" tickbox.

Thanks @Tom W. that's what I needed.

When I do a "paste" or "paste in place" into a file with georeferencing set up, a dialogue pops up asking me something about whether I want the objects to be transformed or projected. I never really understand what this question means, and choose yes or no on a trial and error basis. It's one of those dialogues that has a box to tick that says "always use the selected option" and I think I accidentally ticked that, because now the dialogue doesn't appear when I paste an object into the file. And the object appears millions of miles away from where I want it. How can I reset that option so the dialogue box appears again? I can't find any reference to it in VW help.

I've just done so.

Since writing the above post last week, I have kept a close watch on what's happening and done some tests. My conclusions, in case they are useful to anyone else coming up against a similar problem: 1) The amount of "purgeable" space on disk varies over time but can tend to increase over time, to the point where it's almost the same as the "available" space. 2) In theory, the system or applications should still be able to use that purgeable space - in other words the amount of space that should be available to them is indeed, the "available" space. 3) VW in certain circumstances seems unable to use that purgeable space - even though other applications are. So once nearly all of the "available" space is taken up with "purgeable" data, VW thinks there is no available space, and this is when the out of memory errors appear. My solution for now: to have on standby, a large file produced by another application. When the problems start, open this file, and do one or more "save a copy as" operations. This seems to prompt an emptying out of the purgeable space (full or partial). The amount of purgeable space that gets freed up seems to be larger than the file that I'm asking to be saved. Once this happens, Vectorworks can start saving its files normally again. Not an ideal situation but it works for now.

I have been having this problem for a while, prompting me to spend much of today doing a massive re-organisation of my files and backups in order to clear out space on the relevant disk - but this has not solved it. Essentially, when working on a large file (about 1.8GB), sooner or later will say it can't save it due to a lack of space on the external hard disk that it lives on. In this situation, I have to save the file to some other location, close it, move the file back to where it's supposed to be, and re-open it in VW. Mac OS (I'm on Sequoia) tells me that there is loads of space "available" but also lists a very large amount as "purgeable": (Often the "purgeable" amount will be just a few GB short of "available" and "Used" will be just a few GB short of "Capacity") For some reason VW (and VW alone) is not able to use any of that "purgeable" space. I will get the error if I try "save", "save as", or "save a copy as" from within VW. If, in the mac finder, I duplicate the large files many times over (so increasing the required storage by 10x or more) this happens without issue. If I try in another application (I have tried in Affinity Photo) I try saving a large file (>2GB) it has no problem. I can save it several times over with different names. This is why I think the problem is with VW. Does anyone have any idea why this is or what I can do to solve it?

Pretty much what I'm asking about in this thread:

What would be rather useful behaviour for walls is something that I'd also like to apply to site models: any solids that intersect them (even if they are not symbols "in" the wall would automatically subtract the volume. It would be useful not only for things like quoins and other external decorative elements but also eg. joist ends. I think in the vast majority of cases where you draw a solid that intersects a wall, you want it to fit in a hole/recess in the wall, not vice versa. It would also save a lot of time fiddling around with hole components for objects that don't really need to be inserted as a symbol. Hole components would remain useful for certain applications of course. In fact thinking about it there are many object types where this auto subtraction would be very useful. For example slabs, where a column passes through them, or roof faces where a flue pipe emerges. Like walls, in 99% of cases you want the volume subtracted from the slab/roof object not the thing passing through it.

All sounds very similar to where I usually end up.

A question that commonly raises its head! Sometimes I use wall styles when modelling historic buildings because I find it helpful, at least as a starting point, to have the various buildups set up in advance - where it makes sense to make assumptions. For example, I'll have styles for 1 brick, 2 brick and 3 brick thick walls, based on the relevant imperial brick sizes. And variations of these with plaster on the inside surface, and so on. It can be a quick way of testing whether assumptions about buildup match (or broadly match) what is coming out in the survey measurements. There can be advantages in having the majority of walls styled if you want to subsequently change textures etc. But of course that advantage gradually fades away if you have more and more styles.

Very much so.

I don't see much benefit in attaching quoin stones as a symbol within a wall - unless it was possible to specific that they were attached relative to the end point (so that they would move if the wall was shortened/lengthened). I would just make them as a standalone symbol placed in the relevant location. But wall joins are a bit of a weak point anyway - there are things I'd ive higher priority as potential improvements.

i think we're talking about the sort of scenario where you perhaps have repeating elements, like these grooves, captured all within a single symbol, that run the length of a wall but subsequently you shorten the wall length.

That looks to work for the OP but it does have certain limitations, which would or wouldn't be significant depending what was being modelled. For example if some of the slots are not full height but sit above or below the cut plane, or if they are intersected by the cut plane but don't extend right to the bottom, they are all going to need different 2d components, drawn manually. And I think the "fill" problem might pop up as an issue in some of these cases. In the example below I think I need at least 3 different symbols. If I was using horizontal sections I think I'd just need 1. Depending on what was being modelled, and how editable it needed to be, the horizontal section approach would have advantages if, say, I wanted to change the profile of the slots, because I'd just change it in one place. (Red line on elevation indicates where I want the cut plane)