Jump to content

line-weight

Member
  • Posts

    2,378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by line-weight

  1. 2 minutes ago, Alan Woodwell said:

    This all works well but best used in the viewport. You have to have 3 classes set up with belo, section and above. Then in the auto hybrid OIP set them to use the classes and save it as the default.

    will post a file example soon

    autohybrid is great

    That's exactly what I'm doing.

    It's not the below/section/above linetypes that are the problem.

    It's the hidden lines within the "below" part that don't work. All explained above.

     

  2. As an aside, I don't see why the hidden line style should be from a dropdown of fixed options - should be able to set it by class, so that I can have it apply my global "hidden line" type that I have a class for. Like all the other linetypes one can choose within the autohybrid controls.

     

     

  3. I want to show dashed hidden lines for hidden parts of objects below the cutting plane.

     

    In autohybrid "2d appearance" control, "below cut plane" settings, under "pen" I tick "dashed hidden line" and choose a dashed line type from the dropdown list.

     

    The hidden lines then become shown in top/plan view, but are drawn as solid lines, not dashed, regardless of which of the dashed line types I choose.

     

    Am I doing something stupid?

     

    (Thought this might be a 2017 thing but have checked and same happens in 2016)

  4. I have a 3dconnexion device which was working completely fine in VW2016. Nice smooth motion in all directions. I used walkthrough navigation pretty much all the time.

     

    In VW2017 walkthrough navigation seems to have disappeared so am using "Helicopter" as that seems the most similar.

     

    But especially when working close-up the motion is jerky. A bit of fiddling around reveals that this is because the speed of motion, as I gradually push on the joystick, doesn't start from 0 and ramp up smoothly as it does in VW2106. It seems to start suddenly at a certain low speed. This isn't so noticeable when zoomed out from the model, but working on any kind of detail it is - jumping around the place because the lightest touch on the joystick starts it off at a pace. There is no fine control.

     

    It doesn't seem to be a problem on all axes. Rotating left and right is ok, as is tilting up and down. But sideways left/right, vertical up/down and movement forwards/backwards have the problem.

     

    I've tried fiddling around with the settings in the 3Dconnexion control panel (threshold, speed etc) but no luck. It still happens with the speed set to the lowest possible.

     

    This is becoming enough of an issue that I might have to move back to 2016.

     

    (By the way I was initially using a "Vectorworks 2016" configuration in the 3D connexion control panel. That seemed to work for both 2016 and 2017. I tried deleting this and adding a "Vectorworks 2017" configuration. But doesn't seem to change anything - 2016 and 2017 both seem to work from this. I also updated to latest version of 3Dconnexion driver, 10.4.1)

     

    I'm on a mac, El Capitan

     

    Using a 3dconnexion Spacepilot (it's an old model, buttons are not expected to work but the joystick is supposed to be fully supported)

  5. 5 hours ago, Thomas Wagensommerer said:

     

    Yes! "Autohybrid" should be an additional feature of a symbol, not a separate object.

     

    It would be useful to have it as a feature of a symbol (which has to have its own origin by definition).

     

    But it would still be useful to have a standalone version of an autohybrid, that didn't have its own origin. More like a special type of group.

  6. Have been drawn to this thread by being quoted above.

     

    Agree that having elements that can span several layers/stories and show up on the floorplan for each would solve a lot of problems.

     

    I also think that plans should be generated as horizontal section. Top/plan view is a mess. I made a thread about that here:

     

    Meanwhile I am going to check out that plugin...

  7. 18 minutes ago, gester said:

     

     

    and i've given the advice: switch to bim completely for all projects, especially the smallest ones, just to practice it. and after a few years it'll profit. what else do you want to hear?

     

    Some practical advice that will actually help people to achieve that in the real world.

    • Like 1
  8. 16 minutes ago, Tom Klaber said:

    @lineweight (née col37400)I really would like to see a full example set of files to examine - really examine what you should expect to get out and what the best practices are.  Short of these example files, I think we are going to be making it up as we go.

     

    Same here! I'd like to see those telling us that it all fairly much works provide some actual files that we could look at.

     

    I certainly feel like I'm making it up as I go.

     

    I am fortunate that I'm currently a one-man band so only have to lead myself through the maze. The thought of being responsible for working out a system that a whole office can use and transition to reasonably smoothly gives me a headache.

    • Like 1
  9. 4 minutes ago, gester said:

     

    i'm doing it for a living, too. but i'm not talking about 'now', 'currently' nor 'at the moment'. i'm talking about the future, which is close by the door, not light years away. you are still living in 2d world, sorry.

    I think that @Tom Klaber started this thread looking for some advice on what's realistically possible at the moment in the real world, not in a speculative future.

  10. @gester - designing buildings is what I do for a living. I know very well what level of detail is required at each stage of the process, and I know what formats people will currently accept that in. The facts are:

    - there is absolutely no way a 3d model only - however information-rich it might be - is currently going to be accepted at any stage of the process by any of the people I work with and need to share information with. Not clients, not regulatory authorities, not tender estimators, not contractors, not the people working on site or doing fabrication off site.

    - therefore, good quality 2D drawings, as the primary and definitive documentation of a design are absolutely necessary for all projects I currently deal with, regardless of whether I am "thinking in 2D" or not.

    - the shortfall in the quality of that 2D output that VW can generate is not to do with "beauty" but with legibility and ambiguity

    - to the very best of by knowledge Vectorworks cannot produce these drawings from a 3D model at the moment, without significant patching-up and manual intervention

    - to the very best of my knowledge Vectorworks cannot produce a 3D model that describes any project I work on, even at schematic level, using the standard tools only. Many elements simply have to be modelled from scratch..

     

    When I say "to the very best of my knowledge" that means that I fight for many hours with VW on a daily basis to get it to do what I need, I have the most current version of the software available, I look at all the tutorials and documentation I can find, and I ask for advice on this forum where I still come to a dead end.

     

    If anyone wants to respond to any of the several quite specific issues I've raised by telling where I am missing something, then I am all ears and ready to listen to any advice that lets me do my work more efficiently. If it becomes clear that I have overlooked solutions on account of being an idiot, so be it. But I do believe that the problems that are being discussed on this thread result from limitations in VW's capability to fully match its users' real-world requirements, rather than the user base being incompetent, unwilling to change workflows where changes can be practically made, or lacking understanding of what's required in the process of the design and construction of buildings.

     

     

    • Like 2
  11. 7 hours ago, gester said:

    you've got he answer from peter cipes referring to the walls' joints. nobody said it'd be easy, no other app is flawless, either.

    on the other hand: the faster you can cope with 3d the better off you are. in 5-7 years 2d will be a scarce minority.

    rob

     

    Well, the answer from Peter Cipes was that joining walls doesn't work properly without manual patching-up and workarounds, and in fact that it works even less well in 3d than 2d.

     

    I'm not quite sure what your point is - we should just accept that stuff doesn't work properly and get on with inventing our own time consuming workarounds, instead of trying to communicate to VW the things that don't work for us in day-to-day real life practice?

     

    My comment about the problems with wall joins etc was in response to you saying that for most buildings everything can be done fine with the buildings pallette tools. I just don't think that's true. Even if you believe that thanks to the long awaited paradigm shift the quality of 2D output is soon to become an irrelevance - there are still many problems with the way the standard tools generate the 3D model, especially beyond a schematic level of detail.

  12. Every single project I work on has multiple elements that can't be dealt with using the standard tools.

     

    But aside from that, there are really basic things that can't be dealt with adequately - the problems with joining walls of different heights, as alluded to above by zoomer is one example. Described in this thread:

     

    There are also basic issues with creating proper floorplans in roof spaces -

     

    Both of these things come down to limitations of wall objects - arguably the most basic architectural element there is. You mention the inability to created slanted walls too.

     

    To some extent I can live with, say, not being able to create *exactly* the type of window I want with the standard tool - I can live with "near enough" at 1:100 and 1:50, and draw closer detail manually.

     

    But if the wall tool has fundamental limitations, the whole system starts to fall apart for me.

  13. On 30/09/2016 at 9:11 PM, gester said:

    @zoomer, lineweight

    3d solids is a bad way to start bim. you have to use standard elements, and only in extreme cases when it's not possible you use _your own_ solids,

     

    If only it were just "extreme cases" where it's impossible to use standard elements!

  14. There are a few comments suggesting that people are being too fussy about 2D output.

     

    At least in the world I operate in, the quality of 2D output is absolutely crucial. It's still what contractual and construction documentation revolves around. To be honest I'd be perfectly happy to abandon all 2D output, if I could instead hand over a detailed 3D model to a contractor, or building regulations inspector, or town planning authority, or whoever else as necessary. It would mean I could spend more time designing stuff rather than trying to figure out the best way to communicate that 3D design by the means of 2D documentation. But that's just not how things work for the time being, and it doesn't feel to me like it's going to change very soon.

     

    So, there's no way I'm going to just accept what VW generates from the model, if it's not good enough. It does need to communicate "adequately" the design intent - and to me that means it has to communicate it clearly, accurately and unambiguously. If we have long established, widely understood drawing conventions it's not acceptable to issue drawings which have lines where lines should not be, or where the important information is obscured in a mess of irrelevant geometry.

     

    If I were to use the 2D output VW generates from 3D models, without significantly patching it up, then I'd either have to turn out information that simply didn't convey information clearly enough to communicate the design, or I'd be designing in a way that suits VW standard objects and plugins rather than in a way that creates good architecture. Neither of those things are in any way acceptable to me.

     

    I do sometimes see drawings posted on here, as examples of what can be produced, which I have to say in my opinion fall into one or other of those two categories.

     

  15. I use it in left hand, with mouse in RH.

     

    I'd have to observe myself in action to see if it's maily my RH or LH that then tends to skip to the keyboard.

     

    I've not currently got one that allows me to set shortcuts. But I do think I might do that in future, so that I can do most stuff without having to use the keyboard.

     

    I don't use it during 2D work at the moment - just mouse with scrollwheel for zoom/spacebar to pan as I've done for years.

×
×
  • Create New...