line-weight
-
Posts
3,757 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Marionette
Store
Posts posted by line-weight
-
-
To be clear - it's the DLVP that is the section viewport - then it's just a "normal" viewport of that which is on the Sheet Layer.
But I've made a new sheet layer, and make a new viewport (looking at the DLVP) on that, and the problems is still there - nothing in OpenGL.
-
Hi JimW.
I've just tried rendering the same viewport in a couple of Renderworks modes and it seems to be fine. So only a problem in OpenGL as far as I can see.
-
This is a problem which has arisen in a file converted from a 2016 version and opened in 2017.
I have a design layer, on which I have some Design Layer Viewports. These DLVP are section viewports generated from the clip cube.
Then I have a sheet layer. On this layer, I have Sheet Layer Viewports which are perspective views of those DLVPs on the design layer. This is how I generate 3D sliced sections through the model.
Those SLVPs are set with Background Render = Open GL and Foreground Render = None.
In VW2016 this works fine.
But imported into VW2017, those SLVPs are empty. The geometry is there because if I change Background Render to wireframe, it shows up as expected. Setting it back to OpenGL, everything disappears again.
I've tried generating the sections and viewports afresh, but the same still happens.
Elsewhere I have SLVPs that are direct 3d views of the model (ie. no intermediate DLVP stage) but these are fine if I render them in OpenGL. So the problem seems to be something related to the SLVP viewing DLVP viewing model setup.
I'm not sure whether this might be related to the problem described in this thread:
-
Push/Pull tool is very useful and one that I use a lot. In particular having the "move face" alternative to "extrude face" mode is useful. But when you use the "sub-face" mode, the new face you generate can only be extruded. It would be great if we could choose to push/pull that newly created subface in "move face" mode straight away.
Alternatively, an option just to create the new subface in situ (ie coplanar with the face that it's been split off from). Then the extrude/move action could be executed separately.
-
1
-
-
Just for example in plan view - anywhere an autohybrid joins a wall, there's a solid line across the cut plane. If you're using an autohybrid to model a section of wall with more complicated geometry than the wall tool can produce - then that line shouldn't be there, because the two elements are contiguous.
If there's an object existing outside of an autohybrid, and you want it to stay in the same location in space when you bring it within the autohybrid, cutting and "pasting in place" doesn't work like it does working within a group. The autohybrid has a different datum to the outside world so your element pastes into some completely different place.
Unless things have changed in 2017 (literally have just upgraded now)
Anyway, next week I'm going to try and convert a relatively detailed 3D model into proper plans and sections that I'm happy with. I'll try and do a thread where I can post up the extent of patching that's necessary.
-
My experience with this so far. I started "taking the plunge" about a year ago now.
Previously, I'd model in 3D using sketchup, and produce the accurate (2D) documentation drawings in VW.
I'm in the process of trying to bring everything into VW. So I do the 3D modelling in VW, and in theory generate the 2D documentation in VW. I have some older projects that I'm still doing the "old way" but a couple of newer projects, still in their early stages, that I'm doing the "new way". So a gradual transition.
The process, frankly, has been painful, mainly down to the fact that you don't fully discover the limitations of the software until you're actually trying to use it on a real project. Whereas previously I'd feel in full control of the drawings I output, using the new way, I haven't, which is disconcerting when you've got a live project. However, it's getting better.
The positives:
- Initially I found 3D modelling in VW frustrating and confusing, compared to sketchup. But, as I've got the hang of things, I've become a lot more fluent, and now feel that in terms of pure 3D modelling it's as good as or better than sketchup. It's improved quite a bit in the last few years. So, stick with it.
- I bought a 3Dconnexion 3D mouse. This is the single best investment I've made. Once you get the hang of it (I found it didn't take too long) it really makes a vast difference to the fluency of direct 3D modelling, as well as visualisation. Get one.
- Getting a grip on Renderworks has been worth it, particularly understanding that it's an integral part of the software rather than something you have to export to/from. Still quite a bit to learn but already it's improved the quality of what I can present to clients.
- Again regarding client presentation, having things properly in 3D is great. They like it. It's better for them than going through a series of 2D pages. So far I've just shown them direct in the VW in openGL view, and we can walk through and fly around and discuss everything. The best thing about it is that it means less tedious work for me! Instead of having to finalise the design work some time before a presentation, and then convert it into a series of 2D sheets that explain everything I want to, I can pretty much tweak the design until just before they walk through the door and we simply look straight at the 3D model. I'm going to take this further once I've proerly explored the capabilities of the new web vie service as well as the Nomad app which I've not really used before.
The negatives:
- so for me this is a big one: a really big one. In my opinion the software is fundamentally deficient in converting the 3D model into a set of 2D drawings (even at 1:100 or 1:50 scale), at least for the kind of work I do which involves existing buildings and lots of non-standard elements. Only a few parametric objects are really useful for me, and they all have limitations. You can use auto-hybrids to an extent but they have annoying features, for example it's difficult to move objects into and out of them. The best top/plan view I can generate needs lots of patching up to produce something presentable. Likewise elevations and sections need lots of patching up. I could go on. I think I might do a thread soon, where I'll show just how much patching up and working around is necessary for me to take the output from the 3D model and make it presentable. I'm not sure to what extent the folk at VW really understand what a problem this is. I really hope they can put some effort into fixing it.
- there's not really, as far as I can make out, a "standard" way to organise your drawing. In other words, VW don't say, this is how you should organise your classes and layers and objects and materials and then all our tools and auto-classing and so one will work in a clear and logical way. So you kind of have to work out your own system. I've found that time consuming and frustrating, and as I still haven't seen a project through to construction stage I haven't fully worked out how I'm going to organise detail drawings and so on. Also, I fear that at some point in the future, when I might want to share info in a more formalised BIM way, I'm going to find that there are problems with how I've got used to organising my info. Of course, some may say that the flexibility of VW is its strength - the fact that there's not a prescribed way to organise drawings. It does mean you can tailor things to suit your preferences and the kind of work you do. But I feel it's a bit more of an issue in a world where we are heading towards full BIM. I've not really got my head around this quite yet.
Anyway, in conclusion, I've started down this path, and I don't think I'm going back. But there are a lot of basic issues with the VW software that urgently need to be sorted out in order that we can really reap the potential efficiency benefits of working from an information-rich 3D model.
If you search for any threads I've started over the past year or so, you see a documentation of the issues I've come up against! Some of which have also been mentioned by others in this thread.
-
1
-
-
Forum looks much improved, although I think there might be a bit too much blank space and the scroll wheel on my mouse is going to have its lifespan shortened.
Also, my "followed threads" seem to be messed up. All the threads I was previously following seem no longer to be followed, and apparently I am now following some threads I'd never even looked at previously.
-
I like the VB Visual plants as they are 3D but file size and render time wise quite
acceptable and I think they look ok. (Bought the complete package once for C4D)
These aren't so many types - thought I get all of them by Service Select (?),
not sure.
I seem to get about 15 of them from VSS.
If I want more, it seems I have to buy from here:
-
Trying to get my head around what options I have as far as 3D plants go, as a VW2016 Architect+Renderworks user (with VSS subscription).
This seems to follow the traditional VW maximal confusion model. But so far I think I can summarise the options as follows:
1. The "VBvisual Plant" tool gives me access to a few "VBvisual Plant" objects. I can add a few more of these by downloading the selection offered on the VSS downloads page.
- I can't edit these other than by the options in the OIP (can choose season, height etc, options vary slightly by plant)
- These are parametric objects, they don't live in the resource browser
- They are 3D objects, not image props.
- In top/plan view they are rendered as colour bitmap images (no option to control this?)
2. Via Resource browser: Vectorworks Library/Defaults/Plants/"Basic Plants"
- contains "Plant" objects
- they seem to be a special variety of image prop?
- provides me with an image prop in 3D
- provides me with a coloured symbol-type vector object in top/plan.
- I can't edit these or control their top/plan appearance?
- There are various options in the OIP but they are greyed out. Is this because I don't have Landmark?
3. Via Resource browser: Vectorworks Library/Defaults/Plants/"Monrovia Plant objects" (downloaded from VSS)
- more "plant" objects that have same properties as 2. above
4. Via Resource browser: Vectorworks Library/Defaults/Plants/"Monrovia Image Props" (downloaded from VSS)
- These are 3D symbols, the 3D component of which contains an image prop.
- I can scale and edit the image prop.
- In top/plan view, rendered as black line cross like a locus point.
5. Via Resource browser: Vectorworks Library/Objects-Miscellaneous & Entourage/Entourage Trees
- Provides set of 2D/3D symbols
- 3D component is semi-diagramatic 3D model of tree
- 2D component is vector type plan symbol
- Both components editable
6. Via Resource browser: Vectorworks Library/Objects-Miscellaneous & Entourage/Entourage Image props
- set of image props which includes a few trees/shrubs
- editable
So in summary I can choose between:
- "VBvisual Plant" objects - 3d models
- "Plant" objects - special type of image prop (with some features disabled)
- "Image prop" objects
- Regular 3D symbols which can contain either image props or 3D models
Have I got this about right?
Have I missed any useful plant libraries that are supplied with VW, or does anyone have any recommendations for external ones?
-
It's a bit of a pain because I sometimes want to "move" things into an auto-hybrid without their XYZ location changing.
Or, draw something inside the AH but relative to geometry outside it.
-
I'm not advocating you do this, but both the base and wall cabinets DO have the ability to control graphic attributes separately for 2D and 3D. The 2D attributes are controlled by the class the object is on or the attribute settings of the object.
The 2D attributes aren't fully controllable though (unless I'm missing something). As I said in my OP:
In the settings for the base unit tool it seems I can control the solid lines to some extent by changing the object's class. But that doesn't even work consistently - for example choosing a heavier line seems to affect the line defining the back of the splashback but not the line defining the front. As for the dashed lines, it doesn't seem I can control this at all - I just have to accept what VW gives me, which is not consistent with my preferred dashed line style used elsewhere in the drawing.
-
Ah, ok.
I think I used that application some time around 2000. The limitations I found in its parametric approach at that time completely put me off trying to construct drawings that way until very recently. I expect it has moved on a quite bit in the meantime.
-
If I select and copy/cut an object that's not within a certain group, and then go into that group, and "paste in place", the object is then inside that group but in the same position relative to the outside world as it was before.
However, if I try and do the same but pasting into an Auto-Hybrid, then the object I'm trying to paste appears in some seemingly unrelated location and orientation, which is a bit annoying.
Is there any way around this?
-
Because I have seen the corresponding tools from the other App's Demo
and was quite impressed.
What's this? Revit?
-
You can control the graphic attributes of the cabinets with classes.
I'll attach an example of a kitchen that has dashed lines for the upper cabinets.
Look at the dishwasher and under cab refrigerator in the example. You could also do that with base cabinets.
Those scripts are still under development. But I find that they are a way to get cabinets in quickly without having to measure first.
I usually turn off the countertop part of the script and do that separately.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4410711/Example%20Cabinets.vwx
hth
mk
Thanks for this, it is kind of you to provide the drawing file.
Ok, I can see you have the upper cabinets in their own class, and you have the linetype for that class set to a dashed line. So in top plan view they are rendered as a dashed line outline.
A couple of reasons I don't find this an ideal solution.
I have classes which are just about linetype. For example I have a heavy line for section cut lines, I have a couple of "elevation" line types, an "overhead" dashed line type, etc etc.
Then I have classes that are for object types. So... a class for external walls, a class for internal walls, a class for loose furniture, etc etc. Including perhaps a class for kitchen fitout generally. I like to try and keep the number of classes to a minimum because I don't like unwieldy systems. Object type classes I mainly use to allow me to switch certain things on and off in viewports or other editing-mode views. So I might turn off kitchen fit-out items for a plan that's just about setting out partition walls say.
So, ideally I want to have a "kitchen fitout" class into which I can classify various things - parametric kitchen cabinets along with one-off things I've created from scratch. And then I want to define, for each of these things, how they are drawn in top/plan view and I want this done using my set of standard linetype classes.
This approach works with the "door" tool for example - I place the overall door object into my "doors" class, and then I can go into the settings and define how the leaf, frame, swing line etc are drawn in top/plan view, just by assigning one of my linetype classes to each of those elements.
This means that I don't constantly have to remember exactly which linetype I've used for overhead elements elsewhere...it all refers back to what I've set as my "overhead" linetype class. It also means that if I want to make a document-wide change to these linetypes, I just have to change them once, in the relevant class settings.
In a similar vein I have "material" classes which are only relevant to 3d renderings. So I have a "blackened steel" class and a "plywood" class and so on. Again, going back to the door object example, I can set the leaf, frame, etc to various materials by assigning these classes to them in the OIP settings. And again, it means that if I want to make a document-wide change to the look of my "plywood" texture then I just edit the relevant class.
So, my system gets broken if I put the upper wall cabinets in an "upper cabinets" class:
1) It's another "object" class that I don't really want, another class to remember/forget to switch on/off in viewports etc. And extending the logic, anywhere else that I have to control linetype by making new object classes, the overall number of classes potentially mushrooms
2) The linetype used to draw those wall cabinets now escapes my linetype-class system, so if I make changes to my general "overhead" linetype, I have to remember to go and edit the upper wall cabinets class too.
3) This happens to work for the wall cabinets but it doesn't work for the base cabinets where I need two linetypes to draw them correctly in plan - an elevational solid line and a dotted line for hidden detail. For objects like that, it doesn't work to set the linetype according to the overall object class.
Sorry for this lengthy reply. It's not a criticism of your system just an explanation as to why it doesn't work for me.
Maybe the class system I am trying to stick to is impractical/over-ambitious. I'm thinking out loud here to some extent. Any thoughts are welcome.
-
Also: placing "wall cabinets" - again I don't seem to have any control over 2D line type and they are drawn in solid outline in plan, whereas they should be dashed, because they are above the cutting plane.
-
Don't bother with using either the Countertop ('draw counter' checkbox) in the Base Cabinet or the Countertop tool: Just use a Floor object for the countertop - it works much better. You can clip your sink templates out of the floor and it works just fine.
As far as your other points, yes - the Cabinet tools do need improvement (certainly regarding texturing, which is not very good). But I have been able to use the standard Vw Base / Wall / Storage Cabinets for 'most' of my usual kitchen cabinets. Only occasionally have I had to ungroup and break the Cabinet PIO in order to get what I want.
I also have accepted that graphically it may not be 100% to my liking, but I've found it to be good enough to get the design point across.
You can also try michaelk's Cabinet and Countertop Scripts. He made a bunch of scripts that will quickly lay out a group of cabinet PIOs and a countertop (floor object). I haven't used them very much, but it might help you with the countertop at least.
HTH.
But if I use a "floor" object for the countertop, the problem remains - the cabinet positions below are not going to be dotted in. I still have to do that manually, and changes to the model will not be updated in the top/plan view. It also removes the handy facility to automatically generate a splashback.
I'll have a look at those scripts, thanks.
-
My continuing attempts to use VW in a model-centric workflow...
I hadn't previously tried the kitchen layout tools - base cabinets, counter tops etc. But thought I'd give them a try.
Initially, I was quite impressed...this seems to offer a way to lay out a kitchen quickly, in 2d and 3d simultaneously, and there are reasonable options for style of door and so on.
But what about having enough control to produce a floorplan as I want it?
If I draw a kitchen in plan I like to show the countertop with the units dotted underneath. So it is clear that there's a continuous countertop, but also giving an indication of how many and what size units there are underneath.
So, I use the base cabinet tool, and it's got an option to "draw counter". Fine, but if I put two units next to each other they have a solid line between them. What does this line mean? It has no place in my drawing unless I want some kind of joint in the counter, and I obviously don't want a joint between every unit.
So I see that there is also a "counter top" tool. I try unticking the "draw counter" box in the base cabinet settings and drawing a counter top this way instead. I wonder if VW is going to somehow be clever enough to draw the base cabinets below in dashed lines. But as far as I can see, no it's not.
So I seem to have two choices for how my kitchen is drawn in plan - base units indicated but with solid lines dividing them, or not indicated at all.
Well, there is a sort-of workaround: I can draw the counter top in lots of separate sections, each sized to the base unit below. Because then it will draw each section of counter top with a dotted line at each "end" as long as I choose "none" in the "end finish" options. But then, what's the point of having them as two separate objects? Now if I want to change anything about the counter top I have to go through each section individually.
There's a final problem though. Assuming I've managed to set up my drawing so that there are solid lines where I want them and dotted lines where I want those...how do I then control those lines themselves?
In the settings for the base unit tool it seems I can control the solid lines to some extent by changing the object's class. But that doesn't even work consistently - for example choosing a heavier line seems to affect the line defining the back of the splashback but not the line defining the front. As for the dashed linea, it doesn't seem I can control this at all - I just have to accept what VW gives me, which is not consistent with my preferred dashed line style used elsewhere in the drawing.
The same applies to the counter top tool. (This has a mysterious "Style" setting in the OIP but choosing "new" just takes me to a dialogue box to create a new class. I don't know what good this is supposed to be).
Anyway, the upshot of all this (unless I have missed various things in which case please correct me) is that these tools just don't give me enough control to make them useful in top/plan view. They are handy for quickly building a 3D model of a kitchen but then this all has to be redrawn for top/plan view which kind of defeats, if not the whole point of them, a large portion of it.
This seems to be a continuing theme.
I think it's another example of where the top/plan view concept just doesn't work, as discussed in this thread: https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=229752
If tools which work in this way are to be any use, then we have to have full control over the 2d representation of them. And this should be consistent. Some tools, I can control lineweights in a fair amount of detail (door tool, stairs, say). Why not in these?
-
So... it appears that to do what I describe in the OP is not possible.
Therefore, the strategy for fixing up plans/sections/elevations generated from the 3d model has to involve applying patches/masks.
Does anyone have tips on the best way of doing this?
Applied as annotations to the viewport in the sheetlayer?
A special design layer for these elements, perhaps activated sitting on top of the main layer within a viewport?
Something involving design layer viewports?
Or these patch-up elements controlled by class rather than layer?
-
It should preserve the lineweights too. As can be seen above this doesn't happen properly.
-
Yes, that's an alternative approach and the one I'd prefer generally I think, because it is more non-destructive, ie. makes later edits less work.
I also think this should be the only way to go in BIM.
And not to have any dead unlinked 2D drawings.
But there shouldn't be ANY unwanted or missing lines at all in Viewports.
Looks like I saw solutions where that seems to work.
Each mask or annotation is again dead and unlinked, so error prone.
I agree completely.
-
Here's a bit of my top/plan view, first as it looks in the viewport, then after I've converted to lines/polygons.
[img:left]https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=16356&filename=Screen%20Shot%202016-08-19%20at%2019.34.06.jpg[/img]
[img:left]https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=16357&filename=Screen%20Shot%202016-08-19%20at%2019.34.24.jpg[/img]
-
^ yes, that's the kind of thing I get (from top/plan views too), either with convert to polygons or convert to lines. All those ghost lines and the more complicated the geometry the more of them there are.
-
Without seeing your file(s) it's difficult to be 100% certain, but in most cases I am able to make all that happen in Annotations. There are often times in which I use a mask, or add an line or two here and there.
Yes, that's an alternative approach and the one I'd prefer generally I think, because it is more non-destructive, ie. makes later edits less work.
But there are some situations where I'd like just to convert that viewport into a load of lines. I thought it would be a straightforward thing to do.
Community Board | Forum Upgrade
in Announcements
Posted
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this - but am I allowed to request a change of my username on this forums? If so who do I ask?