line-weight

Two things I noticed when trying to import one of the .shp files in the OP's links: - the file is very small - 2kb - when I import it into VW, the ruler bars around the drawing window go blank - the OIP says that 3 3d polygons are present but I can't see anything.

I might have misunderstood what you mean - but with my 3DC Spacemouse it operates in "helicopter" mode.

I'm actually on Ventura at the moment, and trying to decide whether to move to Sonoma or Sequoia. The Sonoma thread "update" (dated from September) at the top implies there are still known issues for those using external displays (that includes me) - is that still up to date info?

@JuanP would you recommend Sequoia over Sonoma? Looking at this thread suggests there are still problems with Sonoma - is that correct?

It's worth being aware that custom line types have their limits - the way they bend/fit the geometry is not very sophisticated.

It's not somehow part of this problem is it? Do you have issues placing the cursor where you want it?

What do you mean by the "overwriting" issue?

I quite often use this method too. One problem that I find with using class to control visibility is that over time, the saved views that are used to switch between options can start to pick up odd classes that aren't supposed to be affected by that saved view. And I have to go in to the saved view settings and tidy up. I think this usually happens when a new class is created, and the already-existing saved view includes this class as "visible". There is probably some way in which in theory I can stop this happening but a dedicated optioning tool might make things easier to manage. Elsewhere there's been a request to allow Saved Views to be shown in a hierarchical menu. That would also be very helpful for this - so I could have a sub-menu that just contained saved views to do with optioning. It's easy to end up with a long and cumbersome Saved views list. Finally - sometimes, instead of using groups/classes to make options I use layers. I make a duplicate of the design layer(s) where I want to create an alternative option. This can feel less fiddly to manage.

Not in a useful way, though, if you want the attributes of the original objects to be applied to the result of the subtraction.

Good question ... I often come up against this and have never found a solution, other than the tedious one of doing each object individually. It's possible to make a solid addition of all the objects you want to cut, and then do a subtraction/intersection on the resultant object, which will cut everything in one go, but then it's all lumped together as one solid object and the attributes of the individual parts are lost.

Isn't this already possible?

So... I am finding that I am getting an annoying effect when using my Spacemouse Pro in VW2025 in Macos Ventura. It's a kind of rolling shutter effect as if the screen is refreshing from bottom to top at a low framerate. I think this started with moving from Monterey to Ventura, rather than from VW2023 to VW2025 because I get something similar in VW2023. My 3dconnexion driver version is a relatively old one, and I'm wondering if I should update to the latest one (10.8.6). I am nervous about changing anything because previous experience with 3dc drivers tells me it can mess things up. Does anyone have a 3dconnexion device running on Ventura/VW2025 sucessfully with that latest driver version?

Yup I've had this too and it's rather frustrating.

This sounds a bit like something I occasionally encounter but it may be something entirely different. In my case, restarting VW usually stops it from happening.

Hrm... this makes me realise another potential limitation of using Materials. Because at the moment I do quite often use class over-rides on VPs for various purposes. For example maybe I am presenting a number of options for a timber finish. I have a "material class" that represents Oak but I want to give an idea of what things might look like with a paler or darker type of timber. In this case I can duplicate the viewport and in the duplicates, simply over-ride the texture applied to that Oak class with some alternative ones. If the material shows up in a number of places - say, structural members but also some manually modelled stairs, then the texture gets replaced in all of these places. I don't think I would be able to do the same using Materials. But could I achieve the same result using data vis instead of class over-rides? Can I tell data vis to texture anything using Material A, with the textures used by Material B? Another example is where I want to control the fill type in a section viewport. Material class X is set up with a solid colour fill attribute, and this is the fill that's applied to any objects using that material class, when they are cut in a section viewport. But I have other section viewports where I want that fill to be a hatch instead, and I can do this by over-riding the fill attribute for selected material classes. Again, I'd have to think through how I'd achieve this with Materials - would it be possible via data vis?

I am realising that if I want to control textures primarily via "Materials" rather than classes, assigning them is rather more laborious. If I want to draw a simple object and then control its texture by class, the routine is: 1. Draw the object 2. Go to the OIP, click once to expand the "class" dropdown which opens immediately 3. Click on the class I want. It seems that if I want to do the same using Materials, I have to: 1. Draw the object 2. Go to the OIP and tick the "use material" box 3. Click on the newly appeared "materials" dropdown 4. Wait for a short delay while a resource browser-like dialogue opens 5. Click on the material I want 6. Click "select". I am yet to find out whether this becomes annoying when I am drawing a lot of new objects.

We need it for saved views, design layers, and sheet layers.

Thanks. Good to know.

Is anyone able to say whether VW2023 runs OK in Sequoia? The official compatibility list seems to say it is not compatible. I have just moved from 2023 to 2025 so will be working in 2025 from now on but it would be good to know that I can still use 2023 for a bit for old projects just in case I run into any issues in converted files.

So... it looks like it's still the case that moving to Sonoma might be a bad idea? Better to skip it altogether and go straight to Sequoia at some point?

This is a long standing issue, that has been reported many times, but seems to be ignored by VW. There is currently a bug filed for it, unresolved.

With VW there often isn't an "intended workflow" as such. This can be a strength and a weakness. Going from my own experience (and others will have completely different approaches) ... once I started modelling in 3d properly, there were a bunch of things that I'd previously have done in 2d that I just started doing in 3d from the outset. Without knowing quite specifically what situation you are thinking about, it's hard to comment on how one might go about it in a more predominantly 3d workflow.

I used to do 3d in SU and 2d in vectorworks. A few years ago I switched to doing everything in VW with as little duplication as possible. My 2d documentation and 3d presentation drawings come essentially from the same model. This is better in my opinion. Where inefficiency creeps back in is with stuff like this, where the VW parametric tool doesn't create a good enough 3d object for many presentational purposes (or in fact good enough for 2d construction detail drawings). Usually I start out with "near enough" version of the stair using the VW tool, and keep this for as long as I can get away with (and sometimes this can encompass some early stage design changes where the basic stair geometry can be easily reconfigured). But at some point I convert it (or build from scratch) into an actual representation of what is to be built. From that stage onwards I just cross my fingers that there won't be any major changes that mean I have to rebuild the whole thing. Sometimes there are, sometimes there aren't. Similar applies to the other VW objects which are really no good for anything more detailed than 1:100 or maybe 1:50 scale drawings: windows, doors, etc etc.

Making these kinds of edit completely breaks the stair object as a parametric object. The whole point of the stair object is that it is parametric, so you don't have to remodel the whole thing if your floor-floor dimension changes (for example). Hitting a few undos doesn't "take it back to hybrid mode" - it loses you all the work you've just done. Furthermore, converting it to non-parametric solids doesn't even produce a nice set of solids, it produces a whole load of faces which are a pain to edit and look awful in section.

Yes.