Jump to content

line-weight

Member
  • Posts

    4,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by line-weight

  1. This is quite similar to what I ended up doing in the drawing where this problem came up. However, changing that control point from "corner" to "smooth" causes the NURBS to deviate from the original circular path (shown in red): Screen Recording 2024-06-25 at 00.14.39.mov This then has to be fixed "by eye" afterwards.
  2. yes... this is the problem with interpolated points. Increasing the degree to 4 changes it to "control points" instead of "interpolated points" as you say ... but then I'm back to the problem of not being able to set precise Z heights.
  3. Thanks for this suggestion. Have not really looked at the "rebuild NURBS" command. When I tried this, it looked like I needed to rebuild with 25 points to produce something that properly followed the circle (how precisely, I don't know). Abything below that produced a significant deviation. It looks like I can move those control points in the Z direction without things going astray in plan. The problem is that because they are control points (that don't sit on the line itself) I can't easily get the line to pass precisely through points with a specific Z height. The other problem is it doesn't let me have a control point exactly where I want it in plan - they get spaced along the line at intervals that I can't control.
  4. I don't mean select all & then deselect what you don't want - I mean select all, then unselect everything, then pick the objects you want as per normal. But yes selection of objects (and faces in some tools) can often be unpredictable/annoying in shaded mode and it would of course be better if this weren't the case.
  5. I've had similar to this recently with an imported file that contained a lot of meshes etc. I found that after doing a "select all" then deselecting everything, VW would then let me select the objects it didn't previously.
  6. Is anyone familiar with this sort of thing happening in RW renders? This is in VW2023, using a modified version of "Realistic interior final" RW style. The problem is often first apparent in the preview stage of the render, when it starts looking like this in certain areas And the large portions of the final render just end up as a kind of flat lifeless grey, so an area that shoud look like this: Looks like this Sometimes these grey areas appear with a kind of circular edge: These black squares often appear too. The problem is usually solved by closing & reopening the file, but then it'll usually reappear after a couple of successful renders. This obviously slows everything down greatly.
  7. I sort of agree that this is something that should be thought about, in principle at least. It is of course the designer's responsibility to make design decisions, but these can be influenced by the way that software works, and I think it's also the responsibility of widely used software to try and not encourage bad decisions. The reality is that many people are lazy, and/or they are insufficiently experienced or well trained enough to understand the limitations of software. Vaguely related is the issue of regional terminology. For example, the VW window tool uses North American terminology for all the window components and as far as I know can't be set to use (for example) UK terminology. For me, this is mainly just annoying, because I have to try and remember what everything is called in NA on top of what we call it here. But for young architects learning to use VW early in their career, they might not even be aware that the terms being used in the software (and which they are unwittingly being trained to use) are completely different from the names they need to use in construction drawings and during discussions with other professionals.
  8. Yes, I make duplicates as well, for the same reason. But this function would be a lot more useful if it remembered the original and allowed reversion to it. It's not unusual to make a texture, test it out in the model or in some renders and then to want to tweak it several times until it's right. For example I might try reducing saturation by two notches, see how that looks in a render, and decide that's too much. I might then want to see how it looks with it reduced by just one notch. Really I want to go back to that image effects slider, find it still at two notches to the left, move it up one notch and try again (and maybe repeat several times using several sliders). But as it currently functions, I go back, and find the saturation slider back in the middle. Of course, I can try moving it one notch to the right, but this raises various doubts, like for example am I going to compromise the quality of the source image by making several edits on top of each other. And what's the actual result of going two notches left, then one notch right? Does that get me halfway back or something else? The way it works at present, doesn't save me a huge amount of work compared to doing these successive tweaks in an external image editor (where I have full control and understanding of the history of changes) and then re-importing the image to the texture each time. I think it's also confusing/bad design to have the same interface work differently in different scenarios (adjusting viewports vs adjusting texture images).
  9. It seems that if I use "image effects" to edit an image within "Edit Texture" this is a one-way operation: that is, if I (for example) pull the saturation slider down by two notches, and then exit "Edit Texture" the change will take effect - but if I then go back to edit it again, the image will remain desaturated but the slider will have returned to the middle. In other words this is a kind of destructive edit - I can't go back in, and return the sliders to where they started, in order to get back to the original image. Is this how it's intended to function? This is different from what happens with "Image Effects" when applied to a viewport - in that case the settings are remembered and when I revisit the dialogue the sliders will be where I left them.
  10. Absolutely agree. Callouts are one of several things that need Styles. See this thread: My current workaround is to control what I can by class, which at least lets me switch between arrowhead types easily, but yes it's very annoying that only certain attributes can be controlled in this way. I resort to copy-pasting existing callouts rather a lot. A further annoyance with this is that sizes of things like shoulder length are set in page units but then convert to page units when you insert the callout. And this means that if you copy-paste from one viewport to another with a different scale, all these sizes get messed up.
  11. It's quite a big limitation. I think I discovered this when I thought data vis could start doing some of the stuff I normally control via class over-rides. I got some way down the line before realising that it can do most of but not everything that class over-rides can.
  12. Thanks. I always forget that tool will work on 3d things. I will experiment a bit.
  13. The attached file ought to explain my question here. Essentially, is there a "clean" way of creating a smooth transition between two non-planar curves, something like the red line I've shown below? I have drawn this in "control point mode" using the 3 green locii which doesn't give a bad result but it doesn't follow the circle in plan. To get it to do that, an adjustment has to be made in plan view, but by eye. As a subsidiary question, referring to stages 3 & 4 in my file, is there any way of creating a NURBS curve that truly follows a radiused arc, but which lets me have vertices along its length that I can use to adjust Z heights? nurbstransitions.vwx
  14. My habit is to double-click on a viewport, then choose what I want to do from that dialogue when it appears. This involves marginally more clicks than using the right-click menu, I suppose, which is what I'm guessing you do.
  15. Depending on a whole load of things ... I'd possibly just stop the walls short and model the corner from solid objects, and use merge structural objects to make it look right in plan. This can work with horizontal sections, but might not work with top/plan.
  16. For anything that can't be rendered in realtime, as far as I can see it can't work (without becoming incredibly slow and annoying). It wouldn't be possible to make it work for Renderworks viewports, and maybe certain shaded viewports. As far as shaded goes, it's just something I've got used to (I'll pull the crop out to more than I think I need, update the vport, then pull the crop back in again to where I want it) but certainly it would be better if it were signposted more clearly for users. I wonder if it could be implemented so that you got a "preview" of the geometry outside the crop, but just in wireframe/hidden line rather than RW or shaded.
  17. Are you sure - what kind of thing are you finding gets undone? Sometimes I manage to confuse myself by using the "previous view" button just after I've changed some class visibilities or something like that - in which case it can make it look like geometry has disappeared, for example. It can revert a change to the active class or layer too.
  18. It would at least make sense to gray out the relevant radio button when editing the crops for those types of viewports.
  19. I think in the foreground it has created a kind pf prison camp where architectural draughtspersons, renderers and the like will be incarcerated once the AI overlords deem them entirely redundant.
  20. It's not because the crop object is a circle - its the same if it's a rectangle: if you are dealing with a shaded (or RW) viewport, the "objects outside the crop" don't show when you make an edit to the crop. If you expand the crop area, you only get to see the newly included stuff after you update the viewport. This has always been the case I think... because I've just got used to this behaviour I've never stopped to think that actually it's inconsistent with what happens in hidden line viewports.
  21. Do you move between Sheet Layers & Design Layers directly using the Layers dialogue, or do you use Saved Views when you want to look at design layers? The issue of stuff disappearing on sheet layers due to classes being switched off inadvertently (or objects inadvertently being put into classes other than "none") has been discussed often before ... A recent thread asked for an option that would automatically make all classes visible when viewing a sheet layer.
  22. I use Automatic Drawing Coordination for my main drawings (which are all one page per sheet layer). I don't make use of it for these sheets where I have multiple pages, because they are usually less formal and don't tend to have drawing/section numbers and so on. I just looked to see if the (simplified) title blocks I use on these sheets have ADC turned on and they do ... but I am not sure what would happen if I tried to make use of it! The title Block Manager is aware of the existence of these title blocks and it lists them like this (under the little arrows) I've never really explored how this works as far as ADC is concerned. Presumably ADC would need to know which viewports belong to which TBBs - that's straightforward when there's one TBB per sheet layer but if that's not the case ... can it understand that a viewport is "inside" a TBB? The "Publish" dialogue doesn't list the TBBs like that though - it just lists by the name of the sheet layer. So for example the publish command wouldn't let me publish just pages 1,2 and 3 on the "initial ideas" sheet layer.
  23. I was wondering why this wasn't working... until I realised that, confusingly, the object that VW highlights in red is the cutting surface, not the solid to be cut. With the subtract solids command, the red highlight indicates the object that's going to have something subtracted from it (I remember by this as thinking of that object as the one that's going to have injury done to it) and the object that will still exist if "retain subtracting objects" is not ticked. It's the other way around with the "section solids" command.
  24. Sometimes friends or relatives ask if I can scribble out some basic ideas for their house or extension or whatever. We'll pay you for your time! they say. But they usually have a totally unrealistic idea of how much time I'd have to spend looking at, understanding and thinking about the thing, in order to give them anything that's actually useful. Except for the most basic of things, a couple of hours or half a day isn't going to do it. Sometimes I say that I'd kind of rather give them no advice at all, than some hasty initial thoughts that might turn out not to make any sense once things were looked at more closely. Even with lots of architectural training, first thoughts often turn out this way. In fact experience teaches you that this is often the way! It's a little bit the same with the drawings presented in the OP - the amount of time that someone would need to spend looking at it to give useful input is probably much greater than most people would be willing to donate to a stranger on the internet.
×
×
  • Create New...