Jump to content

line-weight

Member
  • Posts

    2,378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by line-weight

  1. 38 minutes ago, zoomer said:

     

    Generally I have a great Problem that any navigation, 3D Device or Mouse, like scroll zoom,

    is heavy lagged or prohibited as long as the cursor hovers over any selectable Element.

     

    For me, if I hover the cursor over an object, it lights up with the orange "selectable" outline, but as soon as I nudge the 3dconnexion joystick, the cursor changes to a "flyover" symbol and the orange outline disappears - is it different for you?

  2. 35 minutes ago, JimW said:

    From what I understand Install Plugins checks your list of installed apps and applies the intended defaults for those apps in the 3DxWare preference pane. I believe it functions for all of the apps listed here: http://www.3dconnexion.com/supported-software/software0.html

    Ah, ok. But at the moment there are no intended defaults for VW, right? Or at least, they are just the same as the defaults for "any application"?

  3. I've attached to this post a short screen recording which is to explain the trouble I have with jumpy motion whilst zoomed in, in case people don't understand what I'm on about.

     

    There are three cubes, each 10 times smaller than the previous one. If I position myself so that in each case, the cube fills a large portion of my field of view, you can see that with the biggest one, movement is fine. However, with the smallest one it's very difficult, because the slightest touch on the joystick makes things jump around.

     

    This is kind of important for architectural work because I want to be able to zoom out and fly around the outside of the building but also to be able to work on small details like furniture fittings or window frames and so on.

     

    In VW2016 this was easier.

    VW2017.mov

  4. On 28/11/2016 at 6:41 PM, JimW said:

    My 2D movement in Top/Plan also seemed smooth and to work as expected.

    I can confirm the same, nice smooth movement even when zoomed right in.

    For me, it would be more intuitive if moving the joystick forwards and backwards (ie on the plane of my desk) meant the screen panned up and down, and moving the joystick in and out (ie perpendicular to the plane of my desk) meant the screen zoomed in and out - at the moment it's the other way around.

     

    On 28/11/2016 at 6:41 PM, JimW said:

    However, I noticed that 3D rotation when in Orthogonal projection using the Flyover control mode always seemed to focus on the document's 0,0 origin regardless of selected objects or the setting of the Flyover tool itself, which seems to be to not be the correct behavior. I would expect it either to default to center on selected geometry or to inherit the setting from the Flyover tool, such as the newer View Center mode which should make it behave a lot more like Sketchup's 3D view control.

    It's doing something like this for me as far as I can work out:

    - initially, rotates around origin

    - stay in same mode and select object A: still rotates around origin

    - select object A, then switch to target camera mode: now it rotates around object A

    - stay in target camera mode, select object B: continues to rotate around object A

    - switch to object mode with object B selected: continues to rotate around object A

    - switch to target camera mode with object B selected: now it rotates around object B

    etc.

    Also, sometimes I suddenly jump to some position under the ground looking upwards. I can't work out what prompts this though.

  5. Hi JimW

     

    I've done reinstalls all as you describe, except that I'm on El Capitan not Sierra.

     

    My favoured mode is "helicopter" and I always use perspective mode when in 3d.

     

    I still have the main problem I've had since using VW2017: movement is very jerky when zoomed in on close detail. Essentially, there is a kind of minimum speed of travel which means that the slightest nudge on the joystick makes the view jump around. Reducing overall speed settings doesn't solve it. This is as per the video I sent you a while back. I notice that the problem is more pronounced in "helicopter" mode than it is in "target camera" mode but seems to exist in all modes. This problem exists regardless of which of my two 3dconnexion devices I use. It does not exist when I use 3dconnexion's own viewper app.

     

    There is another problem I've been having which is to do with the overall smoothness of movement (I get flickering when thinsg move across the screen, as if it's running at a low framerate), which I have using a current model "spacepilot pro" but not when using my older "spacepilot". Although I had previously thought this was specific to vectorworks, on closer examination I think it is also happening when using the 3dconnexion apps (their "viewer" or "puzzle" apps). Therefore, it might be a problem with my device and I'm going to try replacing it.

     

    By the way, what does the "install plugins" actually do? Anything?

  6. 5 hours ago, JimW said:

     

    If you reset everything as described here, does it behave the same way?

     

    I'm tackling the configuration again now that I've been able to get on the latest macOS and do some modeling work with it.

    Ah, ok, I didn't see that. I will try doing this tomorrow. I'm on El Capitan at the moment - are you recommending going to Sierra as part of the process?

  7. 2 hours ago, gester said:

    we're modelling in the relative heights, not some world z-values. you don't know how will your edifice be placed on earth, and even if you know, when the relative zero of the edifice changes (it may change many times, too), all your world z-heights go to hell. nobody designs in world heights. the storey principle with associated levels in vectorworks is ok, and should remain so.

    rob  

    When I say "global XYZ" and zoomer says "world Z heights" I think we are both talking about the XYZ co-ordinates that apply overall to the model, not to the planet earth.

     

    Sometimes - well, very often - I want to place something relative to the model's 0,0,0 instead of the layer's 0,0,0 or the Auto-hybrid's 0,0,0. That's all.

  8. 13 hours ago, P Retondo said:

    I find stories problematic anyway because when you paste an object from one to another, it doesn't account for the Z level baseline of the layer being pasted to, and appears at the wrong height. 

     

    Going slightly off the thread topic, but yes! This is really irritating. It applies to pasting between layers with different Z heights too. It's a right pain when you accidentally draw something on say a "roof" layer and want to move it to where it should be. You have to go and look up the two Z heights, find the difference, do a paste-in-place and then move the object by the right Z value. There should be an option to "paste in place using global XYZ" just like there should be the same for Auto Hybrids.

  9. Yes, that's what I describe as "method 1" in my OP.

     

    You can make a plan section from the clip cube ("method 2" in my OP") and it's this that's missing the section line instances button. But that's not the only difference, It also for example renders doors differently where they are cur through by the section plane. This is what my basic question is about: are there two slightly different types of plan section viewport and is this intentional. I'd like to understand what's going on.

  10. 25 minutes ago, grant_PD said:

    Well...yes.  But I had already mapped my colors to line weights and styles anyway.  My point being that drafting in the sense that we all know is is probably more fluid and changing now than in any other time due to technology.  We need to understand that conventions were agreed upon as means of satisfying the principles of economy as well as communication.  I'm not trying to burn down the house of conventions here, merely recognizing that in my lifetime we may well see the demise of drafting as we knew it. 

    Sure, and ideally that will mean that the convention at some point becomes that we just hand over a 3d model, and much 2d drawing convention becomes irrelevant, but we do need to find a way of dealing with that transition period when lots of us will still have to present information to people who are used to those conventions.

     

    I think that those who don't work in architecture maybe underestimate how important this is, because especially at a construction stage, managing the communication of constantly changing information can become pretty complicated, with a large number of disparate people needing to be co-ordinated. Plus the range of scales you have to provide that info in which might range from 1:200 down to 1:2, and remain legible.

  11. 2 hours ago, Tom Klaber said:

    For example:

    If I have a double height space with windows; unless those windows happen to be wholly below or above the story split - I have to model them all twice - but make sure that the duplicates are not being scheduled, and make sure they are classed differently so they do not show up in 3D.  I also have to choose if my wall is going to be a two-story wall, and then duplicate that wall on the story above - again classed seperately because it should only show up in plan - Or I need to artificially break the wall - which will cause all sorts of texturing and rendering problems.   Then if there are changes - I have to make all the changes twice. 

     

    By the way as a bit of an aside - my approach with these kinds of situations is that as far as is possible the 3d model should be coherent, and any bodging takes place in the 2D realm.

     

    So, instead of modelling something twice and switching the various duplicates on and off in different views... I think it's better to model it correctly, once, then make the 2D floorplans etc look right by whatever means are necessary, which might mean fiddling around with cropped viewports or manually drafting on top or whatever. A pain but it seems less likely to cause errors in the long run. As far as possible, the definitive source of information is the 3D model and everything derives from that.

     

    My thinking is also that it's more future-proof...hopefully, as (if??) VW gets better, then the way the 3D model is constructed doesn't change too much - but the way information is extracted from it does.

  12. 1 minute ago, grant_PD said:

    And I agree with Kevin.  I'll throw a convention out if it's too much time wasted and I can convey my meaning more clearly a different way.  I remember as a student being criticized for printing my light plots in color, because that was not the standard.  But it's a lot easier to read when you are under the gun and trying to get a show done on time and in budget and the Master Electrician doesn't know what a standard is anyway!

     

    Well, unless you have emailed the plans to an electrician who only has access to a b&w printer, which until recently would not be unusual, or he takes a photocopy, etc etc. These things do often have good reasons behind them, even if we might need to re-assess some of them as technology changes.

  13. 2 minutes ago, Kevin McAllister said:

     

    There are drafting conventions for theatre and entertainment as well but I've always been an advocate of clarity over convention. A well chosen section cut from an accurate model is often better than a simplified convention graphic.

     

    Kevin

     

    I agree, clarity is the priority.

     

    But sometimes the reason a conventions exists is to improve clarity.

     

    For example, a door swing line makes clear that something is a door and not a fixed segment of wall, and whether it swings in one direction only, or both.

     

    The arrow on a flight of stairs indicates whether they are going up or down.

  14. 2 minutes ago, zoomer said:

    I second that.

    But I don't know what is further away from a perfect generated floor plan drawing,

    a true horizontal Section or the faked Top Plan View Illustration.

    Maybe you have to mix them both by VPs to get it a step further.

     

    You have to either do that, or use auto-hybrids very heavily. But they currently have too many limitations to be really useful. (Hence the other thread about an overhaul for autohybrids)

     

    In any case, with either method, you are left with a certain amount of cosmetic repair work to make plans presentable.

  15. 7 minutes ago, zoomer said:

    I never really tried but saw something in a video.

    Maybe just a feature video when the first time sections by clip cube where released (2014? 2015?)

    Yes, here:

    http://www.vectorworks.net/training/2016/getting-started-guides/common/section-viewport-from-clip-cube

     

    but what happens in that video doesn't seem to be what happens for me.

     

    It also states that viewports created in this way will have all the normal capabilities. But as far as I can work out that's not true; they are not linked to a section marker.

  16. 7 minutes ago, Kevin McAllister said:

     

    This is likely why I don't bump against the same issues. Because I don't often use hybrid objects, I'm either showing true top views or cutting a section to generate plans...... works fine for most of my things but clearly is a problem for architecture.

     

    KM

     

    Yes, it's basically because architectural drawing conventions use certain types of diagrammatic symbols for drawing things like doors and stairs when on a floorplan. What is conventionally drawn is not exactly the same as what would be drawn if you just took a slice through them.

  17. 27 minutes ago, Tom Klaber said:

     

    I think you said the answer right there:  Levels become the new layers.  A model is just built in "Design Space" and you use stories and levels to classify the objects for visibility control.  Objects like furniture can be associated with a level and turned off if need be.  Objects could be associated with multiple levels (automatically with overrides). 

     

    I don't think layers need to be done away with or renamed as "levels" or anything. People can use them as they wish.

     

    The key is sorting out how floorplans are generated.

  18. 27 minutes ago, Tom Klaber said:

     

     

    As I have been thinking through this - I really think that this intelligent floor plan is the only thing holding VW back.  Once you get that - I think others will have the epiphany too.  I would put good money on the fact that if we had live plan section and level control AND layers - almost all the BIM modelers would abandon layers.  You could still use them if you want - but few if anybody wood. 

     

    It's not the only thing but I certainly agree it's the main thing holding VW back, in terms of being properly usable for 3d BIM.

     

    I get the impression many are in some kind of denial about whether the existing system, using top/plan view, actually works, once you are trying to generate info from a 3d model. I'm not sure why this is. Is it because they are designing totally different types of buildings than I am? Am I too fussy about my floorplans actually being readable? Is there something that I'm missing?

     

    I went to a VW BIM day here in London a little while ago. Some demonstration projects were presented. One was called "The Cube". Why was it a cube? Because the reality is that the current system comes apart at the seams as soon as you try and generate floorplans from anything that's not basically rectilinear, or complex in some other way, in section!

  19. I can create a section viewport (either horizontal or vertical) in two ways:

    1) via the older "Create 3D viewport" command, drawing a cut line across the model in orthogonal view

    2) using the newer method where I select a cut plane on a clip-cube view

     

    Both methods create something called a "section viewport" in its OIP but as far as I can work out they have slightly different properties.

    A section viewport created by method (1) has a "section line instances" control button so I can control where the relevant section marker shows up and I can adjust the cut plane of the section by moving one of these markers.

    But a section viewport created by method (2) has no "section line instances" control button. So as far as I can work out, once I've created the section I can't adjust the cut plane location.

     

    Another difference: if I create a horizontal (ie plan) section, doors seem to show up differently in the two types. Method (1) the door is drawn closed, method (2), the door is shown open and with a swing line (in neither instance is the door really shown correctly though).

     

    Can anyone clarify?

  20. Tom Klaber, I recognise all the issues you describe. I am really struggling with how to deal with this stuff as I try to set up my drawings in a more BIM-like way.

     

    I'm not sure if getting rid of layers is the solution. Maybe it is.

     

    To me the most obvious thing that's needed is floorplan generation that's based on a cutting plane through the actual geometry, not the current mess that is Top/Plan view which really just generates a plan made up of limited-intelligence 2d symbols. I started a thread on this a little while back:

     

    For architectural work, I think layers can still be useful, just because buildings are generally organised into floor levels, and even if just for ease of editing, it's useful to be able to switch individual floor levels on or off.

     

    For elements that span stories, it can be up to the user which layer they put them on. If I have a double height space I can put the double-height walls and the windows it contains on the lower floor layer, even though they also need to show up on the floorplan for the next level up. This is only a problem at the moment because of the way the plan is generated - VW's top/plan view isn't clever enough to know they need to show on the story above. But if we have a more intelligent floorplan generation, one that is based on slicing the geometry, it doesn't need to care which layer anything's on. It just needs to know its position in space.

     

    At the moment the best solution I can find to generate my floorplans is a messy arrangement with two cropped viewports on top of each other. One shows the stuff that Top/Plan view manages to show correctly, the other is a horizontal section sliced through the actual 3D geometry to show the bits Top/Plan can't do. They have to be cropped into funny shapes around each other and it still needs some cosmetic patching up to make a decent floorplan. On some floors, with simple layout and not much happening in section, I can do nearly all in top/plan view. On other floors (for example loft spaces) top/plan is virtually useless and nearly everything has to be from a horizontal section. I have been using autohybrids too, to increase what Top/Plan can show correctly but am in the process of trying to work out if I can abandon them completely because of the many limitations they have which conspire to make organising or editing anything of complexity a bit of a nightmare.

×
×
  • Create New...