Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by line-weight

  1. In any case, if an opponent is ahead of you, there is no option but to catch up to them first if you eventually plan to get ahead of them. However in this case, this topic is regarding the export of a web view so that anyone can view it on any web-capable device, not just ones that can install sketchup. You are comparing a feature sketchup has within it's application to an export/presentation object generated FROM a Vectorworks model. The comparison your are drawing is indirect. However, to the pricing issue: SketchUp in particular is extremely deficient in a number of areas compared to Vectorworks as well. There are an array of plugins that attempt to supplement this functionality, but even relatively standard things like creating door and window schedules or creating a database of plants take significantly longer there. To say nothing of it's significant lack of 2D plan capabilities that is still crucial to a huge number of users. Then we get to rendering, where it basically includes OpenGL but then all advanced render options either require export or a separate plugin. Vectorworks is an extremely broad set of tools designed to give you a huge array of ways to create things and solve problems, and that tool set is only going to keep increasing. There will always be more focused or more expensive packages that can do parts of what we do better than we can do them, thats the price of maintaining diversity and a jack-of-all-trades mindset. SketchUp is certainly another viable option. If it meets your needs and if it gives you a superior value for your money, then I fully encourage you to embrace it. I am not here to try and encourage you to spend money on something you do not feel proves it's worth to you, I am here to try and help you get the most out of what we offer and more recently, to share in our future development so that you can make more informed decisions about agreeing to multi-year contracts with us. If as I suspect the more underlying issue is a concern over the price of the software, there I can not help you. Vectorworks is certainly no insignificant amount of money, but in many cases it still costs users less than even the hardware they run it on and earns its keep dozens or hundreds of times over. Sure. Sketchup can't compete for 2D work, I agree. But I'm in the position, I think, of many who want to start to work more in 3D. And I think VW wants us to do that. It's just a bit frustrating because, instead of doing my 2D in VW and then 3D in Sketchup I want to bring it all into VW and make the whole process more productive. Yes, the price is worth it if it makes me more productive. I'm really trying (honest) to transition towards doing what I've previously done in Sketchup, in VW, and I'm making headway but constantly meeting quite basic things that make it hard work. Going by the marketing and launch videos and so on, I think VW wants us to be working smoothly and freely in 3D ... does VW know that we aren't though? It's inevitable that any of us moving our 3D workflow from Sketchup...which we might think of as a kind of benchmark standard given that it's sort-of free software...into VW are going to feel (whether rationally or not) a bit short-changed when, after investing a certain amount of time getting our heads round how to do this, we find certain things missing that we might think would be taken for granted. I know that the stuff above is specifically related to an export of a web view ... but the object-collision thing and easy walkaround is something that's missing from basic VW. In sketchup it's very easy to look at stuff from "inside" - you can drop a little red cross where you want to stand, and you are transported there, with a realistic eye height already set and you can look around and walk around straight away. In VW, to do the same seems to have to involve going to a menu, selecting set 3d view, possibly setting a working plane to make sure you are going to stand where you expect, selecting the stand point, selecting the target point, and manually inputting an eye level. And then you are ready to walk around but without the collision detection stuff and without automatically changing level as you go down steps and so on. Just an example of simple stuff that could be made so much easier than it is. The price, fundamentally, is not the issue as such. If I could choose between (a) VW, with certain basic things in the 3D environment improved to "at least as good as sketchup", at the current price, and (b) VW as it currently is, at the price of sketchup, I'd choose (a). Because of all the other stuff VW has, and because it make sense for things to be as integrated as possible. And because I already have 10+ years of learning (and habit) invested in VW. I just want to make sure folk at VW are fully aware that many people will be comparing its 3D environment with what they get in sketchup - and that they will currently be finding certain shortfalls. I'd like that awareness to be informing the development that's currently going on, much of which seems to be very positive.
  2. While the walkaround function with solid object detection is a good development, let's not forget that this has been possible in Sketchup for several years now, an application that is either free or substantially less expensive than VW. So really a lot of this is just VW playing catchup, but a bit late. And there remain other basic things that are possible in Sketchup, that aren't in VW, or are possible but clunkily implemented. (Jim W I don't want to seem negative, and greatly appreciate the efforts you are taking to share and discuss developments with us. Just, when I see the amount of money it costs me to update to the latest VW, and we are still talking about introducing features that have long been available in Sketchup, it grates a little. I'm aware of course that the pricing structure is not determined by you.)
  3. The RM should have a way of quickly and easily expanding it for short periods of time from almost nothing to a large portion of the screen. Ideally I'd like to have it docked, so it doesn't go missing, and isn't floating around messily, but I don't want it using up valuable screen space when I'm not using it. So perhaps it can occupy a very small portion in the dock, but a single click will expand it temporarily to a useful size. And vice versa. There might be some other palettes that would benefit from similar behaviour. By the way, something very annoying about the "basic" tool palette: sometimes I go to select the pointer tool in the top left corner and accidentally click the red button that makes the palette disappear. Then I have to go into the menu and restore it. This happens quite frequently when working fast and is infuriating.
  4. Go into the relevant design layer and get your view of your model into iso or perspective as you wish. Activate the clip cube and position the section where you want it. Then select the clip cube and highlight one of its faces (the one you want to use for the section). That face will glow red. Right click on it and create a *design layer* viewport. You might want to make a special design layer just for this purpose to keep things simple. Then go to that design layer - the one where you've just created the new design layer viewport. You should see the sectioned version of your model. You can now use the flyover tool or other methods to get the view you want. Iso or perspective. Once you have the view you want, now create a *sheet layer" viewport on a sheet layer of your choice. I think you can sort of adjust the viewpoint from the OIP of the sheet layer viewport, but it doesn't work very well. Seems better to get the viewpoint you want whilst looking at the design layer viewport. Before creating the sheet layer viewport.
  5. It took me quite a bit of messing around to work out how to do it. I think this might be an example of a feature that's slightly accidental, but potentially very useful, but the VW designers don't realise it is, or why it is. And therefore, while it's possible, it's messy to use. It's something the implementation of which could be much improved in future releases, perhaps with minimal development input relative to usefulness to VW users.
  6. I meant, it might be creating a SLVP on top of another, pre-existing SLVP (this is what was happening to me until I worked it out). I don't think you need to have the DLVP selected when you "create viewport". Just make sure the relevant DL is active. Does that work?
  7. Have you checked it isn't creating the new SL viewport exactly on top of an existing one? This confused me for a bit. Maybe create a new blank SL and create it on there.
  8. Ich bin doch kein Engländer, sonst ein Schotte!
  9. No, they are all viewports on the same sheet layer. Created as I described in post #227168 above. You make the design layer "viewport" on a design layer, and then you can choose your viewpoint, and make a sheet layer viewport from that. To check they are "live" I edited the model, adding in a few more doors at random....then going back to the sheet layer and updating those 3 viewports gives me this:
  10. I don't understand your post zoomer... can you re-word it?
  11. I might have misunderstood what the OP is after, but see attached which is a screenshot from a sheet layer, on which I've got 3 viewports, each showing a section view generated via the clip cube. 2 of them are the same vertical section cut but viewed from different angles. The other one is a vertical section cut, of the same model.
  12. This is where it gets a bit confusing; the "viewport" on the design layer is not really what I'd think of as a "viewport" because it doesn't have a flattened, fixed view - it is more like a 3d object that you can rotate around etc. So, you can move around to get your desired view, then create your sheet layer viewport from this - which is then a snapshot of that view. This sheet layer viewport is a normal viewport - a fixed view on the sheet. As for how you then adjust the view angle - there is a clunky "set view" option in the viewport info box which doesn't seem of any real use to me. I think you can maybe associate the view with a camera and then adjust it by adjusting the camera...this is something I've yet to get my head around completely and maybe someone else can give you clearer advice.
  13. You can generate a horizontal section from the clip cube - When you've got the clip cube active and set as you want, highlight the relevant cutting face so it glows red, and right-click to get the menu that offers "create section viewport" and create a viewport on a *design layer*. Then you should be able to create a sheet layer viewport, which is a view of that design layer viewport, which I think is what you're after. So we have to create a viewport of a viewport to achieve this, as far as I know, which is kind of typical vectorworks clunkiness but maybe some day this process will become more intuitive.
  14. I do have internal and external trims, but tried turning both of them off completely and the line is still there. The line does not appear in the "wireframe" preview in the door settings dialogue. But it does in the horizontal section viewport.
  15. Does anyone know if I can get rid of that line across the threshold in the plan section view? If not, does that mean this is a bug and should be submitted as such?
  16. Sometimes I draw from scratch something that I know is probably already drawn as a symbol, somewhere in the resource browser, just because going into the resource browser gives me a headache. That's how much I hate the resource browser. So I think it's great that it's been recognised as an unglamorous but very necessary fix and we should encourage more of the same. It's these things that make the biggest difference.
  17. This is how I think we handle it, adding this thread to that request. Trying to add additional attribute controls for all geometry would be a mess, but if we added an inactive method of showing or disabling edges or any lines within viewports, it would be more useful. Certainly better than having to manually cover or add edges in annotations as you have to currently. Being able to make these changes to an individual viewport would be a big improvement on the current situation but I really think some thought should be given to making it possible to change on the model too... and what about multiple instances of the same thing - say the offending lines are within a symbol that is repeated many times within a model? Otherwise we have to manually make the change(s) in each viewport and possibly each time we change something too. Isn't the whole point that we should be aiming to produce as complete a model as possible, which, once sorted, we then use to generate various views without further intervention? As I mentioned further up the thread, it already happens with adjacent wall segments, so surely the possibility is already catered for in some extent?
  18. Certainly it will be really great if there is going to be an easy way of showing someone an interactive 3D model on, say, a tablet or any other hardware that didn't have VW installed. This would make a big difference to how I show stuff to clients. It's actually slightly frustrating at the moment showing 3D stuff to clients because you do all that work on the model but then end up showing it to them on printouts on paper. That fact has an influence on how 3D presentation models are currently built - they will generally have a varying level of detail throughout according to which bits will be visible in the views you intend to present at the end. Modelling something with the intention of showing it as a live walkaround will mean a slightly different approach - a more even level of detail. However I think you'll still find designers will want to retain control over which bits they show and in which order ... so you might find a level of resistance to giving viewers too much control over what they look at.
  19. Letting clients loose on a 3D model that they can walkaround themselves unsupervised... sounds great in some ways, a bit frightening in others. Can you lock the doors to the parts you haven't had the time to model fully yet, or will they be wondering why you've designed a building with a giant hole in the wall they've just fallen out of?
  20. Yes, that's what I want. your (a) and (b) wishes, I would also like. (a) could be optional (ie user can turn it on or off). But if it wasn't, it would be much more useful to have it "always on" than "always off" because that would reflect standard drawing conventions - if two faces meet at an angle you'd pretty much always draw a line there.
  21. It's still current but needs a little housekeeping to weed out some things that have been implemented. Feel free to create an account here: http://needleandmortar.com/wp-login.php?action=register I need to make that registration link more obvious I think. So often the problem with these things - understandably if the person/people who set it up get busy with other things then they don't get maintained. Ideally VW should have someone paid to maintain something similar. But it sounds like moves in that direction are being made which is good news. Also, for people to give their time for free to run or contribute to things like this, they need to feel it's being listened to and responded to. So there needs ideally to be some mechanism for visible feedback/acknowledgement from VW.
  22. That sounds like a very useful and positive development.
  23. And here's what it looks like in sketchup - it draws lines for all the edges except for the 4 I've told it not to.
  24. It's also something that it's capable of doing for wall segments. See attached for example. Two wall segments of different heights attached to each other. In the hidden-line elevation view, it knows not to draw a line where the two walls connect. So surely it shouldn't be a big ask to do this for adjacent simple solids, when required. Another situation - because of the limitations of the wall tool, sometimes a section of wall has to be modelled directly using a solid. But then how do you join that section into a piece of "real" wall seamlessly so that you don't get a join line? You can almost do it in plan, because you can choose not to have a "cap" on one end of the wall segment - in top/plan view the end of the wall segment is drawn open. You can then draw some 2D lines continuing the wall for your custom wall segment if you're only concerned with the plan view. It would be nice to be able to do the same thing with a manually drawn 3D segment, so that it still works in all the elevations, sections, etc.
  • Create New...