Jump to content

line-weight

Member
  • Posts

    3,713
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by line-weight

  1. I've had a thought though, maybe this can be a multi step process:

     

    1) Edit viewport>display using viewport visibilities

    2) Save that as a temporary saved view.... but save the class visibilities only.

    3) Go to the saved view that I want to change (with layers and other stuff set up)

    4) Then go to the temporary saved view, which will switch the classes but leave everything else alone

    5) Then save that on top of the old saved view, effectively changing it to the new class visibilities setup.

     

    A bit tedious but less tedious than manually changing lots of class visibilities.

     

    Not sure if something similar can work in the opposite direction.

  2. 10 minutes ago, markdd said:

    Just a suggestion. If you were to Edit the Viewport and select Design Layers and then check Display Using Viewport Visibilities. You will get to the design layer where you can save a View with just the class parameters selected. I guess it won't work with Class overrides though if that is your need as well.

     

    Mark

    Thanks.

    Yes, this would allow me to save a new saved view, with the right classes activated.

    However, ideally I want to be able to copy the class visibilities to saved views that I already have set up with specific viewpoints, render modes, layer visibilities etc.

     

    Class overrides (which i do use in the viewports) would not be a problem, because I don't need the overrides in the saved views.

     

    • Like 1
  3. I have some viewports set up with a rather complex bunch of class visibilities - and I also have some saved views set up with similarly complex bunches of class visibilities.

     

    Is there any way I can copy the class visibilities (and the class visibilities only - not anything else) from a viewport to a saved view, and/or vice versa? Ideally a way that doesn't melt my brain in the process?

    • Love 1
  4. On 5/26/2020 at 8:51 PM, Jim Smith said:

    Not to beat a dead horse, but sheesh! Why are there two systems that don't make ANY sense for sizing stuff that should be identical?

    The font size in both instances are 6 point.  A marker size of 4 produces a circle of 600mm or 4mm on the page for the Detail Callout that's generated from a Detail Viewport, but a Reference Marker Detail Callout is completely different with a 2D detail scale factor of 0.6.

    Also while I appreciate being able to change the Font size from the Font menu, seem like one should also be able to choose the font size in the OIP no?

     

    Here are the graphic output for a Detail Call out:

    Screen Shot 2020-05-26 at 15.40.39 (2).png

    Screen Shot 2020-05-26 at 15.42.50 (2).png

     

     

    Now here are the details for a Reference Marker Detail Callout object:

    Screen Shot 2020-05-26 at 15.41.40 (2).png

    Screen Shot 2020-05-26 at 15.42.21 (2).png

     

    Totally agree with you. Have lost any hope that these kind of things will be addressed any time soon though. Instead they'll introduce another kind of marker with yet another slightly different way of setting the parameters.

     

    Most of those marker objects are also a nightmare to edit graphically, partly due to inconsistencies in behaviour between outwardly similar objects.

    • Like 2
  5. 11 hours ago, Pat Stanford said:

    OK, the following script will change the projection to Normal Perspective and the Render Mode to Open GL.

     

    If you go to Tools:Plug-ins...:Plug-in Manager and then to 3rd Party you can create a new Plug-in Command, click the Edit Script button and paste the script below into the window.

    Then edit your workspace to add the command and give it a keyboard shortcut.

     

    If you really wanted to get fancy we can add the view to change to as well, but you would have to have different versions for each different view. I don't think you can over-ride the keypad view commands or it would be kind of nifty to be able to hit (say) Option-1 on the keypad and get it to switch the view and change the render mode.

    For now you will have to change the view and then run the script.

     

    
    Procedure OpenGLandPerspective;
    
    {May 25, 2020}
    {©2020 Patrick Stanford pat@coviana.com}
    {Licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License}
    
    {No Warranty Expressed of Implied. Use at your own risk.}
    
    Begin
    	DoMenuTextByName('Projection',5);
    	DoMenuTextByName('OpenGL Render Chunk', 1);
    End;
    
    Run(OpenGLandPerspective);

     

     

    Thank you for this - very kind of you!

     

    I've set it up (I'm currently on 2018)

     

    It works perfectly when I'm within a group - which is great. This will be very useful.

     

    When I run it outside of a group though I find that it first changes the projection to perspective, but I have to run it a second time to get it to change to OpenGL. This is not too much of a big deal as it's quite easy to just hit the shortcut button twice.

     

    Would it be straightforward to make it change the view as well? If it could also change to, say, left isometric that would be really helpful. I don't atually mind which direction the view is; what's more important is that I can see what's going on in 3d, and I can then easily fly around to the angle I want, if it's different.

     

  6. Yes, I've checked those too.

     

    This has always confused me. Now I realise why I was never quite sure what was going on: it's because it doesn't work when you're inside a group.

     

    I think this is a bug rather than a wish. I don't see why that behaviour would be intentional.

     

    Actually ... it is kind of mentioned in this thread, in JimW's post on the first page.

     

     

    That's from 3 years ago and pretty much none of that has been fixed as far as I know, so I'll put this on the long list of annoyances that will probably be with us for many years to come.

     

  7. 25 minutes ago, markdd said:

    The only immediate way I know of doing this is to use the Default Render/3D projection buttons in the quick preferences bar. But you are fixed to one setting at a time.....712905455_Screenshot2020-05-21at12_39_36.thumb.png.8daa32305060df1cc2a8963a31f47718.png and then use the numeric keypad to get the correct View.

     

     

    Thanks.

     

    This doesn't seem to work whilst I'm within a container object though. For example if I am editing within a group - I have those preferences set to openGL and perspective - but when I switch to a "left isometric" view, I get an orthogonal wireframe (in isometric view).

  8. Here is something I often want to do: go from a top-plan wireframe view of something, to a perspective projection, openGL render, and ideally a "top left" or similar orientation.

     

    As far as I can make out, I need to go through three dropdown menus to achieve this. First I have to switch from top/plan to left isometric, then from orthogonal to perspective, then from wireframe to OpenGL. That's very tedious so I end up using saved views - however, this is also far from ideal as it will throw me out of any container objects, as well as to a viewpoint that is not necessarily centred on the objects I am working on.

     

    Am I missing something - is there a straightforward way to do what I want?

  9. 1 hour ago, Kazemester said:

    This is the backside of having yearly "updates". I wish there was at least a 2 year dev process when a new release is launched... But we have new releases every year just when the "older" version starts to work...after SP 5 -6...and we have to start all over again every September... sigh.

    Yes and some will say, simply wait until each version matures before switching to it , but what's frustrating is that just when a version starts to work... attention then moves to the next one, and any remaining problems with the 'old' one go unfixed.

    • Like 3
  10. 1 hour ago, ColbyZ said:

    Thanks for the reply. I understand the soft shadow settings on lights, my issue seems to be when the light hits an object the shadow cast from the object is too hard if that makes sense. The previous interior example you have is perfect, with the shadows under your chairs being soft and fading out. I am very new to Vectorworks and I am still trying to find my way around.

    Looks to me like ambient occlusion is cranked right up - this may be contributing to some of the 'shadow' you see.

  11. Do you have a 'door style' attached to it? If so, it may be that the door style is set up that the 3d visualisation options are set by style rather than instance. You need to edit the door style rather than the door itself to change this.

  12. Ah, I see the option is called "show all details" in the top/plan options.

     

    Different to the "show wall, slab and roof components" that is available in section viewport options.

     

    FWIW I don't use top plan any more, and use the "merge cross sections" option in horizontal sections when I don't want to see the innards of walls.

     

    That doesn't help you here. But I can see why what is described would be problematic. I use "material" classes, which means that I use the same class for a bit of plasterboard whether it's a wall component or modelled indivudually somewhere else in the building. So if I had to turn that class off in order to get my wall to look as I wanted, then it would be a problem if other objects with that class disappeared too.

  13. 11 hours ago, Mik said:

    michaelk,

    If we turn off a class that contains high-vertex count meshes (for say plumbing fixtures), will VW quit trying to process them or does it process them anyway?

    I believe I tried this and did not notice any gains but was done on a more complete project where there was plenty else to process so hard to say what is happening.

    I think this can help, yes, it's something that I do. Plumbing fixtures are a typical source of problems, and I often have a class that I can turn off in 3d which makes certain operations run much more smoothly (for example I find the push-pull tool in particular can stop working when there are meshes in the background).

  14. 22 minutes ago, Cadplan Architecture said:

    I'm using walls today and Reverse Sides flips all the components and keeps the inner and out faces of the wall in position, e.g. it flips around the centre line of the wall. Is this what you mean?

     

     

    No, I think what @David Poiron means is that it flips around whichever of your components is the "core". In the example of a cavity wall, it's less clear what the 'core' is, but let's say it's the inner leaf, as that tends to be the loadbearing one. So when the wall was flipped, the inner leaf would stay in exactly the same place but the cavity, insulation and outer leaf would move to the other side of it.

     

    It's hard to think of a use case that would arise using cavity walls - more likely with wall buildups where you have a structural component that is centred on foundations and then internal and external finishes are attached to it on each side.

     

    What I would find useful, and is similar in concept, is to be able to "replace" a wall style simply by specifiying that the core component stays in the same place. This would be useful when you are simply changing a wall buildup to one with a different kind of cladding, which might have a different build-up thickness. Walls are generally set out on the basis of the structural component, so once the design is progressed to a certain stage, in making alterations you'd generally want that structural element to stay in the same place. For example, if you change an internal stud wall from one layer of plasterboard each side to two layers each side, you don't generally want to shift the wall to the side by 12.5mm, you want to keep the studwork in the same place and increase the wall thickness slightly.

  15. Having now used this tool for a bit - I can confirm that I am seeing exactly the flipping behaviour described above. Working in VW2019.

     

    My hunch - not fully tested - I think it's related to situations where the invisible line that connects the start and end points of the undelrying polyline crosses the linear material object itself. And it perhaps something to do with the proportion of the object that sits on one or other side of that line.

  16. Did someone actually decide that's a user friendly way to do something? Amazing.

     

    You'd think you might design it so you activate the window tool and then place the window directly into the roof object, like what happens with a regular window in a wall. But instead there must be several counter-intuitive intermediate steps with some traps to fall into along the way.

    • Like 2
  17. 2 hours ago, khumenny said:

    line-weight,

    Not sure what you're implying...

    But after decades of 2D CAD and building 3D surface models separately, and now being able to combine the two into one, BIM definitely means something to me. 

    How else should I have described this model?

     

    https://www.vectorworks.net/en-CA/architect/bim

     

     

     

    Well I guess the way I see it, there is not really an agreed definition of what BIM is, or at least it seems to mean different things to different people. Does something being represented in 3d make it "BIM"? Is some kind of 3d representation necessary for something to be "BIM"? I don't know.

     

    As @bcd mentions, some people seem to think BIM means "Revit model".

     

    How would you define it?

     

    Maybe it should be the subject of another thread.

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...