line-weight

send them the VW file and ask them to download the VW viewer? https://www.vectorworks.net/support/downloads/vectorworks-file-viewer

Do they actually provide anything other than a video of an imaginary system that seems to bear little resemblance to reality? As an architect it's great to see their idea of the "design process" - draw polygon around site - dump some buildings on it - choose roof shape - choose taps - job done!

I keep my classes in 3 basic categories: 2d-xxx-xxx Materials-xxx-xxx Objects-xxx-xxx 2d is mainly line types (elevation lines, cut plane lines, overhead lines, etc etc) sometimes with fill defined. They are used mainly for annotation, any 2d detailing, and also as attributes for section viewports and so on (so, my cut plane line is the same whether it's a manually drawn 2d section or one generated from the model Materials are for what the name suggests. Set up with textures, hatches etc so that things appear as I want them whether I'm looking at the 3d model or a section. The objects classes tend to be applied to container objects (which contain elements that are placed in the appropriate material classes). In practice I find the objects classes are mainly used to control visibility, for example when I want only to see structural elements, or don't want to show any furniture, and so on. I'm considering ceasing to bother defining things as "walls", "cladding", etc, but just have a tiered system that's based on construction sequence (substructure>superstructure>insulation>services>finishes>fittings or something like that) because almost all the time, that's how I want to control visibility. I think that sometimes there can be "over-classification" at the object level - but realise that it may be useful for those producing reports etc from the model. I have the luxury that most of my projects are relatively small scale and only me working on the drawings.

Hopefully the analogy doesn't go so far as to mean you can then never un-stir the soup, or we're in trouble.

Is there actually a good reason for slabs and roof faces to be different things?

And by the way, as far as doing the "precise" details in 2D - I often see these done by importing a crazily over-detailed frame section from a manufacturer, resulting in a messy, hard to read drawing that often fails to actually understand or communicate how that frame needs to interface with the opening. It looks "detailed" but the important details aren't there. In actual fact, a simplified version of the window frame profile is often perfectly adequate and also clearer. So, I have now done a few window details where I've modelled the window in 3d (from scratch) - but only to the level of detail really required. I've found that this can then be used as the basis of pretty good interface details, cut directly from the model. Actually it doesn't necessarily take all that much more time than fiddling around with multiple 2d drawings manually - the big downside is that it's not parametric, so there's more work when you have to adjust the window size, or have multiple windows of that type. A decent, fully flexible window tool that would let us use our own profiles, get everything set up to the level of detail that's actually necessary, and then apply that to a number of different configurations is what I'd like (not something that asks me whether I want "prairie style", whatever that is).

Even that's a struggle with the current tools. It's actually impossible to get many window configurations really to look right in elevation. But even when you can get "close" enough in elevation, the process to get there is slow, painful, and full of unexplained bugs. Ever spent some time chasing your tail around the "lock sash" routine in the "custom sash" options in an attempt to get things the right size and in the right place? Sometimes it's literally faster to model from scratch with some basic extrudes.

I don't really agree. It's another example of "add something new" instead of "fix the broken old stuff". I'm pretty sure that a vastly greater number of people would have benefited, from the time put into making a new configuration, instead having been put into fixing just some of the things that are wrong with the basic door types. It's much more likely that a building will have 100 basic hinged doors and one barn-type door, than the other way around.

Whatever the reason, it seems clear VW don't want to discuss the window and door tools, why they are not maintained and why we aren't allowed access to the distributor-specific versions that ave been developed. Can we crowdfund getting some third party ones written? I reckon a lot of people would be willing to pay for them, if they were decent. And developed in close consultation with real world users. I would pay.

Is this the most up to date one? https://www.iso.org/standard/69130.html It hardly encourages everyone to follow these standards, when they are not made openly and freely available, but you have to pay a large-ish amount just to see a PDF that tells you what hatch to use. Especially when you suspect it'll refer you to multiple other standards, each of which you also have to pay for.

speaking as a UK architect - I'd be quite happy to have it dictated to me and others (including product manufacturers/suppliers) which hatches should be used for what! It would save us all a lot of time figuring out what's what on construction drawings.

If you are managing to make this all work, that is a very impressive technical achievement. It seems that making it work requires some specialist coding skills and perhaps the resources of a larger company... things that not all of us are able to have, unfortunately.

What you say makes sense @Dubman.

I'd say I tend to agree with this. It would however be useful if certain materials could hatch parallel to their orientation - primary example being sheet materials like plywood.

To be clear, when I say horizontal section I mean literally a horizontal section - not one involving any hybrids or 2d symbols. So if a door is modelled correctly in 3d, it will be correct in my plan. However you're quite right, this sets me up with lots of annotation, for example door swing lines. This may seem crazy and would be for larger projects, but for the smaller type of projects I do (lots of non standard detail) I've decided it's the "least terrible" option for now. It's less time consuming for me, than fighting with plugin tools. Unlike you I don't have to worry so much about IFC and so on - I just need clear accurate construction drawings. I hope that some day the time will come that I don't have to have this kind of home-brew solution.

That's a great example of a real world situation that VW can't currently deal with properly. My solution here would be probably be to create the inner insulation layer either as a separate wall, or as directly modelled solids. I then make my floorplans as horizontal sections to allow me to make the cut plane where I want it, and for it not to section that inner insulation layer. For the dashed "something overhead" line, I would add this manually as an annotation in the sheet layer viewport. I've not yet found a reliable way for VW to automatically give me dashed "overhead" lines in the right places. So I give up on that and do it manually. Of course, this means I have to keep on top of any updates by adjusting the viewport annotation as necessary. Very interesting that you have written your own code to produce window and door plugins (I see a door frame with a stop on it - hooray!). If individual users are writing their own code to make usable doors and windows it makes it even more ridiculous that VW still cannot supply us with this as a basic and fundamental part of the programme we pay for.

You could effectively have tags, by allowing objects to be assigned to more than one class. Would there have to be some kind of hierarchy though? (Tag/class A says "visible", Tag/class B says "invisible" - which one does VW go with) This is effectively what many of us do with container objects... container has one class, things inside it have others.

I'm still testing this - but it might be that duplicating the troublesome saved view, and then deleting the original, might be a workaround.

Thank you for your reply. Good to know it's already been recognised as a bug, and fixed.

^^^this VW urgently needs to have a decent sized group of people who are currently practicing architects regularly producing construction drawings for real jobs working closely with their software designers, giving detailed feedback. The focus and direction of things does not give me the impression that this is already the case.

This is a problem I'm experiencing in a VW2018 file. If this is a problem that fails to replicate in later versions, I suppose there will not be much interest in fixing it, but in case it does: - The attached file is a stripped-down version of a working file (which is quite complex with a large number of classes and saved views). I've deleted all the geometry but the problem can still be seen. To replicate: 1) Open the organisation dialogue 2) Select the "classes" tab and the "visibilities" (rather than "details") button 3) I've numbered saved views SV 1 through SV 4. And there are 4 classes named CLASS A through CLASS D. 4) You will see that CLASS A is visible in all saved views, and classes B, C and D are not visible in any saved view. 5) Try setting CLASS B to be visible in all saved views (by selecting CLASS B in the left-most pane, and changing the settings in the saved view pane at far right). 6) Now select CLASS A in the left-most pane. 7) Now select CLASS B again, in the left most pane. 8 ) My result here is that VW has retained the "CLASS B = visible" settings for SV 3 and SV 4, but it has reverted this setting for SV 1 and SV 2, which have CLASS B as invisible. It seems that VW does not want to remember changed settings for SV 1 and SV 2, but it will do for SV 3 and SV 4. I can't figure out anything about SV 1 and 2 that is different. Any ideas why this is happening? classvis_test copy.vwx

Can anyone who's used vw2021 for a bit confirm: (a) has the issue with the buggy redraws been fixed? (b) have you successfully used the new "smart options display" across multiple panes/screens and have you found that it makes a multiple-pane setup more usable?

Also I'd rather have a window tool that was based on, say, German standards, than one that is based on no standards whatsoever, and in fact hardly bears any similarity to the way that windows are physically constructed and installed anywhere in the world. Or maybe there is some country somewhere, where they put the external windowsill on the inside, because it rains inside their houses, or something.

Is another thing where there's a useful tool that you're only allowed to have if you are in a certain region?

I was hoping that the new "material" resource was something that I could apply to an object or component, which would then define how it appeared when rendered/drawn in elevation/drawn in section. As well as containing data about the material itself. And that this would replace my current method of using class to control these things. Reading the above, it doesn't sound like this is the case. It sounds like it doesn't release me from using class to define these things, but somehow operates in parallel and not consistently. It sounds a bit of a mess. It seems particularly odd that it can't control appearance in a section cut, because in fact a section detail usually has the purpose of distinguishing different materials - hence all the different section hatches that are conventionally used in construction drawings. Materials are only sometimes indicated in elevation views, and often by a note rather than a fill.