line-weight

Here is a wall, seen in 3d in a design layer, in a shaded view: This is fine. I can see all the components clearly. Here's the same wall, still in design layer, viewed in top/plan: You will see that I use a hatch fill for three of the components. An initial reaction might be that I am using very dense hatches. Actually I'm not, and the reason they appear like this is because I have all of my design layers set at 1:1 "scale" for reasons I won't try and explain here. This is what the same wall looks like when I zoom out a bit: Not very pretty but just about workable - I can still (relatively) easily distinguish the three different hatches. However if I zoom out more: Now the hatches look horrible and are barely distinguishable from one another. It's quite unpleasant working on drawings where a lot of the walls are like this. My question is, isn't there a better way to render hatches when zoomed out like this? For example, could they just revert to a solid colour? Alternatively, is there a way for me to set up walls so that when I'm viewing them in top/plan design layer mode, the components are shown as solid colours, but whenever they appear in a sectional viewport, they use the hatches I've assigned to them? Or... could we have an option not to scale hatches when zooming in and out in a top/plan design layer view?

Unfortunately the direct snyc does not seem to be reliable.

I just happened on this blog post, which mentions an alignment error rather similar to what I saw in the survey I had done. https://www.spacesurvey.co.uk/post/we-had-to-refund-the-money-multiple-revisit-and-side-elevation-204mm-20-4cm-shorter-than-in-real It doesn't exactly explain how it happened - one illustration shows something 20mm out of alignment while the actual error was 20cm. Anyway, it does seem to imply that there is some element of manual intervention in getting the various scans aligned.

Hm, on my examples, there are some gaps which I can't seem to resolve fully by rejoining manually. In fact the gaps that are an issue in shaded view are in different places from the ones visible in top/plan.

This kind of shape comes up quite often as a question. It can be hard to achieve both neatly and accurately. I think you need to try and redraw your curve with fewer points.

Just to double check it wasn't something I was doing ... I made 4 further copies of that bezier curve, and did a "convert to wall object" on each of them in sequence without doing anything else, and here is what I got: The OP might want to consider building their wall as an extrude or EAP instead of using the wall tool.

I think converting curves into walls is generally unreliable. See for example the attached file. Try converting the bezier curve (top in the sceenshot below) into a wall object. Below it are two results I've got. Zoom in to the "join" between walls and you'll see there is a gap. Furthermore, note that doing the same operation on copies of the same curve has produced two different results (the "join" is in a different place). bezier walls.vwx

I've just got around to trying this, and actually this does reduce the reflections quite a lot. Thanks. It doesn't really make sense but it works!

I realise things get more confusing because there is also a "fresnel" shader option under "color":

@zoomer I tried the "clear" texture that was in your file, in my original drawing, and at first I thought it was in some way better (from a reflections point of view). It's the one on the left below. But as soon as I changed the "transmission" value under transparency from 90% to 95% the undesired reflections re-appeared more strongly again (image on the right). This doesn't feel right to me ... it doesn't feel like reflections should become more prominent as the material becomes more transparent.

Here's an updated version of the test file itself, if any wants to try and replicate. glass test.vwx I wonder if I should report this as a bug. I've tried it in VW2023 as well as VW2025, with the same results.

For completeness... here's what happens with the "mirror" shader

Here's what happens... if there is any difference between the renders it's very subtle.

Here's what happens, going back to the "plastic" shader. There is some difference between reflectivity at 100% vs 0%. But 0% certainly doesn't reduce the reflections to zero!

Changing the transparency or colour settings has the kinds of results I expect. It doesn't affect what's going on with the reflections though.

Here's a test file and a screenshot from it. As far as I can see, adjusting those settings has no discernable effect on the reflections visible in the render. glass test.vwx

Thanks @zoomer I've tried as you suggest with the glass shader, but making adjustments to those two grayscale inputs seems to have no effect on my render at all. I am going to have to do a bit of troubleshooting to see what's going on. Maybe it is something in my render settings.

Yes. This kind of thing is very common in the UK at least.

Thanks for the reply. I think this confirms that the behaviour I'm seeing is a bug?

The problem is that they only allow architects to model the most basic of stairs. They can't cope with a variety of features that are quite common even in fairly standard residential buildings. Any architect who has tried to use them for anything but the lowest levels of detail will not tell you that they are "fantastic".

Of course, this messes up the ability to easily change floor-to-floor heights without a lot of manual editing of stair objects, so you lose a fair bit of the advantage of a properly parametric stair.

The image is an extract from a cutaway rendering. Kind of white card/balsa style. It's modelling a glass-to-glass corner. I don't want to see so much reflection there, in that corner. Partly the issue here, I think, is that these are triple glazed windows and they are modelled as such. So there are 3 layers of reflections going on. Of course I could replace with one solid piece of glass for the purposes of this rendering but would rather not if possible. I thought I'd be able to dial the reflections right down ... but I can't seem to find the setting that lets me do this. Here are the "reflectivity" settings for the material I'm using. I thought I could just reduce "Reflection" to a very low percentage. But even setting it at 1 or zero seems to have little effect. Where am I going wrong?

They really aren't.

It's very common for flights of stairs to have a couple of non standard treads at the bottom. It's not entirely unreasonable to expect a stair tool to be able to cope with these kinds of conditions. This is far from the only limitation of the current tool, of course.

Well, I use them all the time. It would be nice if they updated live (like it would be nice if all viewports did) but it doesn't make them unusable for me. If I am editing my floorplans, most of the time I'm either doing it in 3d or in a top/plan design layer view. If working in a fully top/plan workflow, then a certain amount of your model is going to have to be within autohybrids, and editing geometry within those involves extra steps. It's a trade-off either way of course. If you are dealing with large primarily rectilinear buildings then using HSVPs may still not make sense. However, they do allow certain freedoms that are very advantageous for certain types of buildings. One of those is the ability to use stacked walls without it causing too many issues.