Jump to content

line-weight

Member
  • Posts

    3,708
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by line-weight

  1. As my notes databases become larger and larger I become more and more nervous about accidentally messing them up and then not being able to revert to a previous version, as can easily be done with the automated backup of drawing files. Because of the clunky way the notes manager works (see complaints ad nauseum in other threads) it's rather easy to press the wrong button, or just "OK" when you didn't mean to, and realise you've unintentionally over-written or duplicated a note. There's no "undo" option, because changes to the notes database don't seem to count as actions in the drawing as far as undo history is concerned, and there's no auto-saved backup from 15 minutes ago to revert to if things have got confusing enough that it's easiest just to rewind back in time. I guess that there are various reasons this might not be totally straightforward to implement, because the version of the drawing file and the notes database might be out of sync... but I think something is needed.
  2. Might be a job for symbols-within-symbols though, so that you could create variants that still referenced the same geometry where it didn't differ.
  3. How would this work in a viewport context though... if you had two instances of the same symbol and you wanted one shown as the plastic variant and one as the stainless one, you wouldn't be able to control class visibilities per symbol instance, only per viewport (which would make all instances the same variant)....or would you?
  4. Cunning! If you have two items located one above the other - say a lightswitch that's directly above a power outlet - do you have a way of dealing with this so that the red symbols don't get superimposed on each other in plan? Edit - that's what's happening here, right?
  5. This is great! I didn't expect my question to be answered so comprehensively!
  6. Here's a portion of wall, firstly represented on an electrical plan, secondly represented in an interior elevation. These two drawings show the same objects but with different representations. For example, those wall lights are represented on the electrical layout with a 2d symbol, that's referenced in the legend of that drawing: On the wall elevation they are drawn literally (ie. their actual shape, size and location). I draw them as 3d symbols and put them in their actual 3d locations. They are then labelled with a callout that's linked to note 19 in the keynote legend The way I've tended to do things until now, this is a bit unsatisfactory because if I change the spec of those light fittings, I potentially have to change stuff in 4 places: 1. Edit the geometry of the 3d symbol used in the model 2. Edit the geometry of the 2d symbol that is used in the annotations of the electrical layout viewport and the electrical layout legend 3. Edit the text of the callout used for viewports that show the 3d symbol (could be interior elevations, plans, reflected ceiling plans) 4. Edit the text that is used in the legend for the electrical layout And if I want to change the location of a light fitting, I have to do it in at least two places 1. Move the 3d symbol within the model 2. Move the 2d symbol within the annotations space of the electrical layout. So, my question is, is there a more clever way of doing this, that streamlines the above? I've considered making the light fitting symbol, for example, so that it has its 3d component and then the symbolic representation as a 2d component. But I think that is just going to get too complicated, right? For example, I might place two fittings in their actual locations in the model, and ask the electrical layout to show them as their 2d component symbols, but those symbols then are too close to each other and I'm not able to edit that for legibility.
  7. @Matt Panzer I think I've found a minor bug, using the unofficial reversed horizontal section RCP approach. A line was showing on a slab object that shouldn't have been there. The slab had its uppermost components offset at the edge, but not the lowermost component (which formed the ceiling to the space). So, viewed from below, none of those offsets should have been visible but it was drawing a line for the edge of the offset components. I turned off "display 2D components" and the line went away. That solves it for now but would be a problem for anyone wanting to use 2D components elsewhere in the viewport.
  8. I haven't tried it in VW2024 yet - but good news if it's fixed.
  9. Came across this video; firstly it looks at how the cost of using Cinema4D has increased substantially since subscription pricing came in, secondly it looks at the cost of using Blender with paid add-ons as an alternative. Of course, we may never see a free, open-source Blender-like CAD/BIM application that could compete with VW, but the video seems relevant to this thread.
  10. Would be nice if Vectorworks could do it automagically for us, of course...
  11. I agree with this logic - and agree using a thick crop line is the way to achieve the best result - however what stops me using this method is that it can become very time consuming adjusting (and re-adjusting) that crop line around complicated geometry (for example around shelving and cabinets, as you describe).
  12. Could save yourself one step by making the crop object itself of the lineweight/type that you want to indicate the outline, and ticking "crop visible" in the viewport OIP? (would save duplicating it in annotations I think) I'm forever changing my mind about the best way to clearly draw the "section cut" line for interior elevations. It can be difficult to do it in a neat way when the section is complex, and if you use the crop object you have to keep an eye out for when it needs updating to match changes in the model geometry. The drawings I'm currently working on I've decided to do it by using a solid black fill, merged, for sectioned geometry: Still not entirely happy with how this looks, graphically.
  13. There are many occasions where it would be very useful to have a fully co-ordinated section line instance show up on another section viewport. For example here is a plan view of a staircase Marked on there are three sections (numbered 452/1, 452/2 and 452/3). These are fully co-ordinated with the section viewports they are associated with - if I want to move the location of a section cut, then the section line instance on this viewport will move accordingly. But I want to show these three cross-sections on the long section through the stairs too: In this viewport, those section lines have to be placed manually. They are co-ordinated with the relevant section viewports only to the extent that the viewport/sheet numbers will update with any changes - if I change the location of any of these sections I have to remember to come back to this viewport and move the section lines manually.
  14. I currently make my interior elevations using regular sections (because of the silly thing where you have to put interior elevation markers on the design layer instead of in annotations like everything else). Where the ceiling is anything other than dead flat It usually involves some very careful placing of the section cut line, and/or some fiddly cropping of the viewport. The trickiness arises anywhere the section cut line cuts the ceiling in a location where the ceiling is lower than it is next to the wall you want an elevation of, because the top bit of the wall then gets obscured. It isn't always possible to move the section line right up against the wall because it'll then cut through anything projecting from the wall (for example shelving) that you want to show in elevation. This problem comes up when the ceiling has dropped sections, or when it's a sloping ceiling. This is parallel to a problem creating reflected ceiling plans, which is discussed here: https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/66836-reflected-ceiling-plan-work-flow/&do=findComment&comment=499500
  15. As far as I can see, it already is. If I create a "top" rather than "top/plan" viewport, in orthogonal projection, the grid lines show. Works in both shaded and hidden line.
  16. @symo the EAP tool can be quite infuriating, because when it fails it doesn't generally tell you what has gone wrong. The VW documentation for it is rather poor: https://app-help.vectorworks.net/2024/eng/VW2024_Guide/Shapes2/Extrude_along_path.htm In particular it's very confusing to understand what those two tick boxes in the dialogue do @markdd's video shows that you should tick the "fix profile" one. In the explanation above, what exactly does "the profile is moved and rotated with respect to the path" mean? There needs to be some clear graphical explanation of exactly what these tick boxes do. They are only very briefly mentioned at the very end of the video on that page but they are quite critical to whether the operation produces the intended result. I'm going to tag @Kristin Bailey here because she responded proactively to another thread about help documentation. I've complained before about the EAP help page but with no response. Going back to what was happening to your attempt, I think it was failing because without selecting that tick box, it'll try and run the "profile" along the "path" using the centroid of the "profile" as the point that intersects with the path. This produces self-intersecting geometry, which the EAP tool doesn't like.
  17. I find that I can end up with different colour results, depending on whether I use "publish" or use "print" and then save as PDF. (I'm a mac user) In the latter case, I think the colour management somehow gets done differently because it's handled by macos instead of VW (or something). This has caused me problems in the past. It's annoying to have to use the "print" method to get the correct colour output because of course if you want to export a whole load of sheets at the same time it takes a lot longer. I'd be interested to see if you notice a difference doing this. It's something I've mentioned in the past but never seems to get much interest.
  18. When you say "renders the images much darker" do you mean that when you export to pdf, the images come out darker?
  19. yes agreed this is an option. In fact this is how I've tended to deal with legends until now too (yet to decide whether to transition to Graphic Legends) As you say, hazards include text getting cropped out unintentionally. And lack of flexibility about things like text column width across different sheets. But really ... all that needs to happen is for the "general Notes" object to have an option not to number the list of items. Maybe I should do this as a wishlist item.
  20. @Matt Panzer getting this to work has reminded me of another issue related to section viewports. Grid line objects get drawn as a solid line "in elevation" (as well as existing in the annotations space) if they are seen by the "below cut plane" extents of the section. I think I've noticed this previously in HSVPs and for that reason place my grid line objects at an elevation well above the model. That means that normal downwards-looking HSVPs don't see them and the issue doesn't arise. However... in these reversed ones, they *are* now seen, and unless I exclude them by setting the "below cut plane" extents to a suitable limit, they get drawn as solid lines in the viewport (superimposed on the dashed lines they are intended to display with, in annotations space. Not sure if this is a bug, or me doing something wrong.
  21. Yup sure, got that - it's just that that particular number no longer refers to an absolute-value elevation, as it does normally.
  22. One thing that becomes confusing is the meaning of the "Finite Depth" number for the viewport's Cut plane and extents. In the example above, the cut plane is set at 2425mm above my datum. If I want to show everything (looking upwards) within 125mm of that cut plane, then I don't set the "finite depth" field to 2425+125=2550 (it won't let me set a number higher than 2425 here), instead I seem to need to set it to 2425-125=2300, as shown in the screenshot above. So, that number no longer represents an elevation above datum (like it does in a regular HSVP).
  23. You can give rows a background fill - highlight whole row, then format cells Still rather tedious, but better than drawing rectangles.
  24. By the way: this would be useful in non horizontal sections too. Sometimes I come across similar issues with interior elevations, for example, which I make using sections. Generally you want a section taken as close as possible to a wall face but you often end up with choosing between slicing things you want in elevation, or having bits of the wall face obscured by sliced bits of sloping roof, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...