Jump to content

line-weight

Member
  • Posts

    3,711
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by line-weight

  1. 49 minutes ago, Matt Panzer said:

     

    The only workaround I can think of for this in Vectorworks 2018 is to use two stacked Roof Face objects with different Roof Styles (one with the clipped "structure" and "ceiling" components and one for the unclipped "slate" component) and manually reshape the "clipped" Roof Face rather than associating it with the walls.

     

    Thanks, in fact this was what I was doing before I thought I'd try out using this clipping feature.

     

    Looks like I'll just have to revisit it whenever I move to a new version of VW, and see whether it's become usable or not.

    • Like 1
  2. Hi - I am in 2018, yes. This is a project that needs to stay in 2018 for now at least.

     

    I've got a version of 2019 too, and I've just tried in that, and 'resetting' (by which do you mean double clicking to edit the roof face, then exiting?) does seem to fix them.

     

    The same doesn't work in 2018.

     

    So does this seem to be a 2018 bug that there's not going to be a way for me to get around?

  3. See attached file. Two roof face objects - each is associated with the two walls beneath it. They are the same except on one I've fitted the walls to the underside.

     

    The roof faces are set up so that their two lowest components are clipped by the walls, set to the inner face of the walls.

     

    But they are being clipped the wrong way around: they are present through the wall thickness and absent within the "room".

     

    Why is this (I have this working OK with other wall/roof combinations in the same model, from which I've extracted these elements)?

     

    493525964_ScreenShot2020-08-24at17_52_18.thumb.jpg.cb0b63c2eda7323aa91351b5809ec2a6.jpg6825481_ScreenShot2020-08-24at17_51_38.thumb.jpg.d7bdf0eb10c357fd76952a53f0921d3b.jpg

     

     

     

     

     

     

    wall_assoc.vwx

  4. 1 hour ago, gabrielefx said:

    Hi All,

     

    I'm a Rhinoceros + Spaceclaim user, I use both for 3d design and cleaning solids.
    For example in Spaceclaim I import step or x_t files, delete holes and fillets and simplify the geometry.
    In Rhinoceros I add surfaces to complete the design.
    I'd like to know if Vectorworks Designer could replace both programs.

     

    regards.

    You'd be better asking this question in the general part of the forum, I think. This thread is about an upcoming new feature that none of us have used yet!

  5. 1 hour ago, Senthil Prabu said:

     

    @line-weight, Thanks for showing interest on this enhancement

    Adding move face capability in "sub-face" mode is a great idea, we will look into this.

    Since Move Face results with Generic Solid (lost all its history), we will look into preserve the history for this operation.

     

    Thanks. Having the edit history too would be a bonus.

     

    I actually already asked for it 4 years ago!

     

     

  6. Looks promising - I use that subface mode of the push pull tool a lot so the time saving with what looks like a fewer-clicks method will be very welcome.

     

    One question though, a frustrating limitation of the push-pull tool is that when you use that sub-face mode, you can only "extrude" the sub-face, not "move" it, as per the "move face" mode.

     

    Will that remain the case?

  7. 10 minutes ago, zoomer said:

    Auto Bounding would normally cut off the Wall.

    So no intersection.

    But I think I have my Wall Components to cut Z set to top of structural slab

    anyway.

     

    I meant that Auto Bounding on Components level works reasonably well in

    many situations, often even where I expected Auto Binding to fail.

     

    Ah, I see. I don't generally use Auto Bounding, because I expect it to fail. But maybe I should try using it a bit more.

  8. Thanks @zoomer

     

    I can see the logic of this approach. And the "invisible threshold" is a good way to make the door "opening" deeper than the door itself.

     

    The drawback is that it then seems inevitable that there will be lines visible at each threshold, in plan. At least at smaller scales, I like to be able to draw a floorplan that does not show any lines at door thresholds.

     

    I tried a version where the entire slab "flows" through the opening - so the invisible threshold is the same height as the entire floor slab. This is not really constructionally correct, as the floor needs either to be shaped around the jamb, or intersect with the jamb, but this workaround  might be good enough for me in some circumstances.

     

    804221746_ScreenShot2020-08-17at12_15_05.thumb.jpg.8fead91a2e9f751dac9a3cf7b8b337d2.jpg

     

    (My example is not intended to show a balcony, just a situation where a floor slab crosses over an internal structural wall, so an internal wall that is continuous vertically, and normally built before the floor slab is put in place)

  9. Here's something I come up against quite often. See attached example file and screenshots.

     

    When you have walls which span between floor slabs, as per the thinner wall in my example, VW knows how to deal with the threshold at a door opening. The floor is simply continuous.

     

    But it's different where structurally the wall is continuous through several stories - constructionally, the wall is continuous and the floors join to each side. You can draw it like that - different floorslab each side. That's fine until you want a door or opening through that wall, because when you introduce an opening, the threshold is then just a slice through the wall buildup.

     

    You can try and cheat and draw the floorslab continuous, like in my screenshots, but then you have that Z-fighting where the opening and floor surface are on the exact same plane. Sometimes I deal with this by making the door opening 1mm lower, which gets rid of that visual annoyance in OpenGL but that is messy, and it still isn't right in section.

     

    Shaping the floorslab around the opening profile makes the section correct where there's not an opening, but doesn't solve the other issues.

     

    Is there a "proper" way of doing this? The only way I can find is to build the wall in 3 stacked layers, one the thickness of the floorslab, (see my third screenshot) but that is very tedious and complicated.

     

     

    1453101348_ScreenShot2020-08-12at12_08_57.thumb.jpg.026a46daa502044eaf3322a6a992e04c.jpg

     

     

    464764192_ScreenShot2020-08-12at12_09_06.thumb.jpg.14e2e35ac657ce3aa8b3b92fd38ba23a.jpg

    1227878434_ScreenShot2020-08-12at12_29_48.thumb.jpg.592cdde2223b6cb391d0f7091fb95cb3.jpg

    wallint.vwx

  10. There's no "best practice" or coherent workflow that VW is designed around, for architectural projects, I'm afraid.

     

    You kind of have to work out what works best (or least worst) for you and the type of projects you tend to do.

     

    One of the big issues is touched upon above: the "top-plan" concept sort-of works for certain kinds of buildings (large rectilinear ones with flat roofs) but falls apart for more geometrically complicated things. Then you can use the horizontal section approach - which has a separate bunch of problems associated with it.

     

    Vectorworks frankly is a big mess - but quite a flexible and adaptable one, which is why many of us stick with it.

    • Like 2
  11. 1 hour ago, Taproot said:

    @zoomer Sorry to hear that ... but hey that's a pretty good run.  I'm just amazed that the light source is still good after all of those hours.

     

     

    @line-weight We're using VW2020 Designer (latest service pack). 

    Here's what the primary view pane looks like when it starts to go buggy.  Part of the image displays at a different scale.  In this example, I had just one other viewpane open.

     

    1867850923_ScreenShot2020-07-19at6_48_46PM.thumb.png.bc31627d8b6edec4118a4ed6ca78b585.png

     

    Yes, that's exactly what I get. This has been a problem for some time. I raised it in the thread linked to below (see the video there), but I'm pretty sure it has been mentioned by others earlier than that.

     

    Disappointing but unsurprising that 2 releases later VW have still not fixed this.

     

     

     

     

     

  12. On 7/18/2020 at 8:07 PM, Taproot said:

    I was just working on a complicated drawing that necessitated having multiple panes open at once.  The functionality was great!  It took two sections and a plan simultaneously displayed to understand what was going on.  However, I noticed that after a while, the main drawing window didn't refresh correctly and the section displayed disjointed chunks of the image (like a puzzle before it's put together).  We've seen this bug before elsewhere ... while zooming in and out the image draws correctly, but when stopped it blows apart.  Suffice it to say that when I closed the other panes, the main drawing window rendered correctly again.

     

    This is exactly what I've experienced and one of the reasons I've largely given up on multiple panes. Which version of VW are you on?

  13. 12 hours ago, jeff prince said:

    I use this occasionally on my laptop when creating items in 3D or wanting to reference items on a different layer that I don't want to see in my active pane or is not available in my active pane because it exists on a sheet.

    If I was setup on dual monitors, I would probably have a dedicated perspective view pane running all the time during 3D work.

     

    I find it is exceptionally useful for placing and sizing items like doors and windows on an existing context model when you have no measurements 🙂

     

     

     

     

     

    When the two panes are on the same screen like this, it's fairly easy to move between either of them, and the tool palettes. When a pane is on a second monitor, there's then a rather long journey for the cursor to make back and forth (plus my muscle memory keeps wanting to look for the tools in the normal position relative to the active drawing pane).

     

    How is this dealt with in other applications - do they repeat the tool palettes on the second monitor? I think that if VW did this, it might be easier to use in this way.

  14. It sounds like most people have come to the same conclusion as me - the floating pane configuration doesn't really work.

     

    That several people have said they do use something similar in other applications suggests that it's just a poor implementation in VW. Which is a shame because with a bit of effort it could surely be made to be more usable.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...