line-weight

If anyone is willing to indulge me....

Curious to see how the different the picture is when dealing with non-renderworks viewports. Open the attached file (sorry, it's quite large); it should already be looking at the sheet layer as per screenshot below; select all three viewports and press the "update" button to update them all. On my M1 Mac Mini 16GB it took 2 mins 48 seconds. 1049605006_vportrendertime.vwx

here I have made the "value rating" (renders per day) / (price) x 100 Higher "value rating" means better value

because it looks like it's fixed by "repairs" to the VW application itself, I'd assumed that sending a file is not necessarily going to produce something replicable, because it somehow depends on the state of the application as well as the state of the file itself.

Just happened again - when I tried to resize a window opening. Resize the window opening (either using the handles on the object, or by typing a new value in the OIP) and the holes fill in, throughout the model. Undo reverses it, trying the same again, the problem is replicated. It seems to happen if I resize either of the openings on that particular wall - but not if I try resizing openings in other walls in the model. Fairly sure I've re-sized those openings a few times since I previously did the "repair" on VW, without issue.

Above^^^ in bold is what doesn't make sense. Those two conflicting observations. If numerator = speed and denominator = price, then a high "value rating" number = better. If a high number = better, then the M2 Max MBP should be getting a higher value rating than the i9 iMac. But it doesn't in the table. I think a calculation is going wrong somewhere.

I get the basic idea of value - just meant that the numbers in the table don't seem to make sense.

I don't understand the "value" figure. For example M2 Max macbook pro gets 0.0016 and i9 iMac gets 0.0028. They both cost about the same but M2 Max is loads faster. This suggests lower number = better. But ... M1 Macbook Pro (0.0051) and M1 Mac Mini (0.0110) take roughly the same time for the render, with M1 Mac Mini being half the price. This suggests higher number = better.

Glad to see 16GB M1 Mini winning on value 👍

Yes - although I lost all of my door and window openings in that model, when the problem suddenly happened. Not just in that wall. The only unusual thing I did to that wall, that I can think of, was to use the "resize" handles to change the shape and size of the window openings, something I'd not tried before because it wasn't possible in earlier versions of VW.

Even if you don't click away, it still gives wrong results (often shorter than the reality). Plus, I find it takes a while to start counting after I press the "update" button.

I don't know! Same result here (but this is after doing a "repair" on my VW2023 install). Also, moving it by 0,0 will solve it yes, it does somehow come from a messy wall connection. It is inherited from a "as existing" model which has been changed to the "as proposed" but I have not got around to cleaning up that old connection. Below is what it looks like in the "as existing" model, both in "problem" and "healed" states. As above, no it's not needed in the "as proposed" version. The door opening is enlarged compared to the original.

Are you all reporting the time Vectorworks gives you at the bottom of the screen when it finishes the render? Reason I ask is that I realised the other day that this number usually does not correspond with reality - if I measure with a stopwatch I get a different time from the one VW claims.

Sample file attached. This wall has one door and two window openings in it. None of the fixes mentioned earlier in the thread worked for me - except for running the "repairer". Said it fixed 100 files. When I reopened VW, and the file, and then did a 0,0 move to the wall, the holes re-appeared. wallholes.vwx

You can make a title block style which is set to "auto generate page number". I'm never 100% confident I know what's going on with that, but if you make a first instance of the title block and duplicate it, you get a second instance which gets numbered two. I just tried doing a duplicate array of such titleblocks and managed to create 300 of them numbered sequentially from 1 to 300. So if you got the dims right you could overlay these onto your page grid as well as the GL cells. All starting to deviate a bit from what all these things were really designed for though! As for producing individual PDFs ... there must be some kind of PDF editing app that can split a multi-page PDF into individual pages. But of course maybe you would not end up with sensible file names.

Where's that from... a Howdens document?

This has just happened to me in 2023 SP3 too. Door in wall, all fine. Changed the door size and suddenly it's not cutting a hole through the wall. It looks OK in top/plan view but not when I look at it in 3d. Moving it in and out of the wall doesn't solve it. VW thinks it's inserted because it shows as "door in wall" in the OIP. Starting to regret moving to 2023 now... Screen Recording 2023-01-30 at 19.39.49.mov

Yes I might try that. I shouldn't really have to though - it feels that zero quality control has been applied to stuff released into a public library. Just to illustrate....here are some options if i just want a basic corner unit. I can choose between 3 models, "800", "900", "1000". What do those model nos refer to? Something in the Howdens naming system? Don't think so. The basic width? Well, an increase in 100 in the model number seems to be reflected in an increase in 50mm in the actual dimensions. So, doesn't look like it. Anyway if I choose model "800" I get this, 1031mm long. Of course this isn't going to work. Neither of those numbers, 612 or 631 can be right. The standard Howdens cabinet depth (minus doors) is 575mm. This is obvious as soon as you try and place this "corner unit" in a corner between two standard units. Where do those 1031 and 631 numbers come from? I reckon they come from the overall dimensions of the actual Howdens corner units, which look like this: And it seems available as 931x931 or 631x631. What VW is offering me, the "model 800" is some kind of fictional hybrid between that and a 1000mm long standard unit which you can also use in a corner situation:

Have you built them using the VW cabinet tool, or from scratch? I've considered building my own cabinets from scratch because then I can build them fully correctly with things the VW tool doesn't let me have (for example the rear service void) but of course then I lose all the parametric stuff like changing a 600mm wide cabinet to a 500mm wide one at the flick of a switch.

It's a little while since I last fought with the kitchen cabinet tools. This time round, I was pleased to notice that the VW library seems to offer "Howdens Universal base cabinet style" as an option. Howdens is a popular kitchen supplier in the UK. Their cabinets mostly follow standard sizes that most UK suppliers follow. So in initial planning stages, it makes sense to use their cabinets at least as "placeholders" in setting out a basic layout. Well, I thought, great, I don't have to go through the usual process of tweaking the VW cabinet settings to get to something close to a standard UK cabinet. All the Howdens ones are there ready for me. But it didn't take long to discover that they have incorrect dimensions. For example there seems to be a confusion between cabinet depth including or not including the door thickness. And the corner cabinets seem simply not to make any sense. I can make a guess at what's happened with those - someone has input some overall dimensions correct for an L shaped unit but not correct for the straight type unit offered. In other words, these items have been prepared without care and proper understanding. So it turns out to be just another method of wasting my time.

I'd like to re-animate this request 11 years later. I tend to want most doors open for things like 3d walkarounds. But generally, they need to be closed for things like internal elevations. It would save a lot of hassle if their open/closedness could be controlled per viewport, or even per type of view.

If you want to create a viewport on a design layer, choose the appropriate option in the "Create on Layer" section of the "Create Viewport" dialogue.

I don't dispute this, and am grateful to any team members who do respond or take action ... however, there was previously a system which appeared to users to work much better, which was that there was a specific person who proactively looked after the forums, and always made users feel like their concerns had been noted and followed up on. When he left, there were lots of requests that someone else take on the same role, but these were ignored. It's now a more common experience, to raise some issue on the forums, have it confirmed by other users as a probable bug, and then see no follow-up or acknowledgement by anyone representing VW. Alternatively, there is a response, but a request to go and file it as a bug submit, and such requests are of course the subject of this thread. This is nice to have, but I find it of limited benefit as it has no timescale attached - all that can be known from it is that a certain thing is planned to happen at an unknown time in the future. But it gives no information on the progress of fixing of bugs, which tends to be the more critical information.

Thanks @TSG-Sim, that clarifies a few things. A shame that anything we want a graphic representation of, either has to be a special type of object or a symbol. This confused me for some time, as I could not work out why nothing was appearing in my cells. The fact that when you are filtering the source objects, lets you specifically choose all sorts of object types that aren't symbols, gives the impression that you can include these things, otherwise why would you be able to filter for them! Sounds like the answer is that you can include them, it's just that the "graphic legend" can only display non-graphic information about them.

one thing I can think of as a kind of workaround, which may or may not work depending on how you need to have your drawings set up for issue sheets and so on... If you create a sheet layer, go to page setup and do something like this... That gives you a grid of 5x5 "pages" that looks something like this: (In the distant past, I used to set up sheet layers like this, each page in that grid would be a "drawing sheet" each with its own titleblock etc. Meant you could see a bunch of sheets at the same time which was useful sometimes.) Could you then set up a "graphic legend" where the cell size was made to match exactly one of those "pages"? Because then you ought to be able to make a 25-cell graphic legend where each cell would sit on a "page". And to print or export each page as its own document/sheet, you just need to go to print and select "all" and 25 sheets would be produced. In your case ... it would need to be a grid of 10x30 or 20x15 or maybe 1x300 or 300x1 would be best. Not sure how best to deal with titleblocks - maybe you could attempt to make them part of the cell layout for the graphic legend.