Jump to content

line-weight

Member
  • Posts

    3,716
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by line-weight

  1. Thanks @Pat Stanford

     

    Since my initial post I worked out how to alter the inputs to the network so that it would act on a selected object when used as a command from the menu. Which does the job for now. Would still like to hear what the official advice is though.

     

    Also, now that it is in my menu, I'm not quite sure where that command actually 'lives', or how to get rid of a couple of test ones that are now in there too.

  2. 52 minutes ago, Matt Panzer said:


    It could be considered a bug, but it may be a technical limitation or simply a performance limitation.

    Can you send me a file with a few of you most problematic objects in it?

    I’d like to see if I can come up with anything that may help and, more importantly, I’d like to submit a bug with the file. While it may require a lot more than a bug fix, it’s worth a shot.  In any case, it will get more eyes on the issue.

     

    Thank you. I've attached an example file.

    If you look at the sheet layer I've tried to make obvious the issues.

    facetingproblems.vwx

    • Like 1
  3. Pretty much complete marionette beginner here.

     

    I want to use a marionette network to carry out an operation on various objects in an already existing drawing.

     

    (It's the one linked to in @Marissa Farrell' s post here   https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/45566-divide-polyline-into-segments/&do=findComment&comment=232266

     

    As I understand it, I have to copy&paste the network into my drawing file. But where do I put it? For example does it have to be on the same design layer as the object I want it to act upon?

     

    It seems I can paste it into the screen plane in which case it is kind of floating there in front of the objects I want to alter. Then I can use it, and delete it, and then re-paste it next time I want to use it (potentially somewhere else in the same file). I'm guessing this is not how it is intended to work though?

     

    Watching the video below I see that I can convert it into a menu command. I've managed to do that. It doesn't appear where the video says it will (Tools menu) - it appears in the 'New' menu. But anyway - now it's a menu command, am I unable to edit it, or get into it to change the inputs?

     

    https://youtu.be/VCdxp2eRCmc

     

     

  4. That is very poor that there was no follow-up from VW, after you put the effort in to do those tests and explain the results.

     

    I think the conclusion for now has to be that VW is simply not capable if you want to deal accurately with complex curved geometry.

     

    I'm going to have to rebuild most of my viaducts using segmented paths. Thanks for posting the Marionette link above, that will at least make it a bit less messy and tedious than it would be otherwise.

    • Like 1
  5. 25 minutes ago, axhake said:

    I did some time ago do a comparison of the lack of accuracy relating to the faceting problem with curves, I compared the results from Vectorwork, AutoCAD, ArchiCAD and Microstation and found the results interesting which does pose a problem when trying to work with others

     

    That's interesting - although, I think it is a parallel problem to the faceting problem - the geometry of the underlying curve could be 100% correct but the faceting problem still exist, I think?

     

    Did you ever get a response from VW on that?

     

    I have raised other questions to do with these kinds of curves, for example here specifically to do with NURBS curves:

     

     

     

    I also spent some time setting out the issue but there was no response from VW at all.

  6. 2 minutes ago, axhake said:

    Yep, went through the same process but gave up as results were not good, after several days of trying splashed out £200 and bought ProgeCAD, took about 10 minutes to do it and import in to Vectorworks.
    The amount of time I spent trying to get a smooth result out weighed the cost of something that worked.

     

     

    Was the object you imported a genuinely curved geometry or was it segmented?

  7. On 10/9/2019 at 6:41 PM, line-weight said:

     

     

     

    Having thinking that I've worked this out, some problem will probably arise now that I try and use it for real, but let's see...

     

     

     

    Guess what - it's Vectorworks so of course some other problem arose.

     

    I had some success building a number of viaducts which are curved in plan and rise/descend along their length.

    757343366_ScreenShot2019-11-28at12_28_00.thumb.jpg.aa24fabd57207936eaf30822d1517ba6.jpg

     

     

    The problem is with the ones with more gradual curves, because VW seems unable to render these without introducing very large facets, making them look awful, and making it impossible to align/transition with other objects accurately. Discussed in another thread (  https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/55522-smoothing-nurbs-curves/  )

     

    A potential solution to this is to change the NURBS path so that it is segmented with sharp corners, making the segments as small as necessary to give the appearance of a smooth curve. However it turns out that doing this causes the EAP to become hollow, meaning I can't subtract from it. I think that's a bug, if anyone cares.

     

    • Like 1
  8. 15 minutes ago, axhake said:

    I’ve encountered similar problems with NURBS curves, (coincidently also trying to model a viaduct) selecting interpolated points mode I placed the NURBS curves through the alignment points I was given bu the client but the NURBS curves failed to pass through the points, it came close  but not through. Similar problem as described above where the curve was faceted, adjusting the degree and weight made little difference.

    The way I managed to get something as close to acceptable as possible by creating the curve in another package and then importing in to Vectorworks.

    What may help was a Marionette script I found on the forum that Marissa created for someone wanting to divide a a curve into segments which does a similar thing, this may help

     

     

     

    Thank you - I will have a look at that.

     

    I too have come to the conclusion that I am going to have to draw the path as a segmented line. This can be done by changing the degree of the NURBS path (to create more vertices) and/or converting each vertice to a corner type. Unfortunately this then results in the EAP object becoming hollow, which means I can't then subtract from it (for example to make the arches through the viaduct). So I'm now looking into using a loft instead of an EAP.

  9. @Matt Panzer would it be fair to classify this as a bug?

     

    Effectively it would seem that there is certain geometry that is unusable/undrawable in Vectorworks. It's not something obscure that I want to draw - just something with a gradual curve. It looks like the only way I can do it is to manually draw it as a series of short, straight segments, that are shorter than the smallest faceting I can get VW to do.

  10. An observation: if I draw a circle and zoom in (in OpenGL) there is a facet approximately every 5.5 degrees (image on left, orange line is the 'true' curve)

     

    But if I chop that circle back, so it's an arc with a sweep of only 5.5 degrees, it's faceted into much smaller pieces (to the extent that you have to really zoom in to see it, image on right)

     

    So it seems to be related to length of curve as well as radius (at least, as far as a circle is concerned, not sure the same applies to a NURBS path)

     

    1796388933_ScreenShot2019-11-27at22_43_15.thumb.jpg.9f0a704343001309f8d00a28aa747eea.jpg335527331_ScreenShot2019-11-27at22_43_36.thumb.jpg.0fa50d62f8e4185f08790b3d315c378a.jpg

  11. 44 minutes ago, Matt Panzer said:

     

    I do not believe it has anything to do with units. I would say it's relative to the zoom level.  The closer you look, the larger the facets appear.

    I don't think that's true - the facets are the same size regardless of how far in or out I'm zoomed (at least, looking at it in OpenGL in VW2018)

     

    edit - fiddling around, I think I see what you mean, regardless of the radius of a curve in units, the 'closer' you look at it the more obvious they are. There is a facet per x angular degrees of curve.

     

    As @Kevin McAllister's diagram shows.

     

    Strange thing is that pasting one of the objects into a new document seems to halve the facet angle. I don't understand why; I can't seem to find any settings that are different.

  12. Thanks for the answer, which of course is not really the one I wanted to hear.

     

    So... VW can't draw large radius curves. OK.

     

    I assume the 'large' is relative to drawing units? So it could potentially be improved by changing what my drawing units are?

  13. I am having similar issues, but can't seem to resolve it by changing any render settings.

     

    The images below show a viewpoint above a viaduct that diverges into two branches. Each of the viaducts is generated using a nurbs curve (in an extrude along path).

     

    In wireframe everything appears as it should - nice smooth curves, and the point where the two viaduct parapets converge (near the bottom right of the image) is correct - they join in line with each other.

     

    However in OpenGL, they are heavily segmented and the meeting point appears well out of alignment as a result.

     

    In hidden line, they are a bit better, but the same problems are there.

     

    Is there any way I can improve this? Is it because my Nurbs curves have too few vertices (I want to keep them to a minimum to ensure smooth curves and for filesize)

     

    2090637460_ScreenShot2019-11-27at13_07_25.thumb.jpg.e592a93931118ef8025d836f47b63e59.jpg1335467531_ScreenShot2019-11-27at13_07_10.thumb.jpg.a0a443e37a4b5f8bf872bc1e234e5cab.jpg1731759318_ScreenShot2019-11-27at13_07_40.thumb.jpg.42dfb2cadf7a74323ce8359b9e3311d8.jpg

  14. @drelARCH all I can do is offer my sympathy, I am still using 2018 and fighting various dysfunctions in sectioning. Just the other week I quite literally lost a whole day trying to get it to section a site model properly. Disappointing to see that it's still a thing in 2020 and for me another reason not to spend the money upgrading.

     

    The ability to draw an accurate and clean section is completely fundamental to architectural drafting, and it's something the software should be getting right all of the time.

    • Like 1
  15. 6 hours ago, Matt Panzer said:


    Yeah.  I didn’t even know about them until shortly after starting my position here at Vectorworks!  It was a well hidden feature. I believe it was not marketed much because the display of 2d components was still very limited and we didn’t want users to feel they should create floor plans with them over using Top/plan.  But now they’ve gotten quite a bit more capable.  🙂

     

    It doesn't seem to have been marketed much at all in the release of 2020. There was mention of something about 'horizontal sections' and I was curious about that, but it was not explained at all and I assumed it to be something trivial.

     

    I'll reserve final judgement until I actually try out 2020 of course, but what you describe gives me the most positive feeling about a future for Vectorworks that I've had for some time. Finally an indication that somewhere someone making strategic design decisions 'gets it'.

     

    I've put off upgrading to 2019 and 2020 so far, partly because of perceived unreliability and general disillusionment but also because none of the developments introduced seemed particularly worth it. Had I understood better the thinking behind the horizontal section advances, I might have been more tempted. I've been banging on for some time about how VW should stop introducing new bits and pieces and focus on sorting out the core functionality. This sounds like an actual move in that direction.

     

    Back in 2016 I wrote a rant about what I saw as a dead end for top/plan view. Turns out that some of what I wanted is finally coming true. Pleasing news.

     

     

  16. By the way I realised back in 2016 there was something going on with horizontal viewports; I even asked about it on here because it was confusing me -

     

    https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/46515-are-there-two-confusingly-slightly-different-types-of-section-viewport/

     

    and never really got an answer, but now it makes more sense. So is there now only one type of section - however you create it - with the difference being controlled with the 'display 2d components' option?

  17. @Matt Panzer thanks very much for taking the time to answer my questions. I now understand. I am still using 2018 which is why I'd not realised these concepts had been introduced into 2019 (I was aware of 2d components being added into 'normal' sections but hadn't appreciated that this was now part of horizontal sections too. Once I get onto 2020 I'll look forward to exploring this a bit more - it sounds like a positive step in the right direction. In fact it means that I can continue with my own horizontal-section approach to floor plans, with VW features converging with it rather than the opposite, which is very encouraging news.

     

     

  18. Let's say the object I want to end up with can be made from the following objects, added and subtracted as follows:

     

    (A+B) - (C+D+E)

     

    It could also be made, from the same basic objects but as follows:

     

    (A+B) -C -D -E

     

    Or

     

    ((A+B) -C) - (D+E)

     

    This is an object that I want to be able to edit by going back to edit any of the objects A-E, so it will stay as an addition/subtraction and is not to be converted into a generic solid.

     

    Other than the configuration that's most convenient for me in terms of subsequent editing, is one of these better than the others, for any reason? For example the first option involves 3 operations (an addition, another addition, then a subtraction) whilst the second involves 4 operations (an addition and then three subtractions). Does this have any significance for things like memory, or likelihood of the resulting object getting corrupted?

     

    In reality the objects I'm wanting to make will have more than just 5 component solids.

    • Like 1
  19. @Matt Panzer actually yes, I do want to create the construction documents with pure 3d sectioned geometry, and this is what I now do, because a while ago I decided that top/plan simply doesn't work, at least for the kind of buildings I work on (appreciate this might not apply for everyone). I found that it could not generate floorplans that were of acceptable quality. In fact the issue raised in this thread is an example of the kind of thing that just doesn't work properly

     

    Yes, it can be frustrating that my section-generated floorplans can take a while to update. I do use top/plan for editing purposes - especially for things like laying out doors, windows and walls, but the final drawing is generated from a horizontal section. Would it not be preferable to try and speed up the process of updating sections, instead of continuing with the top/plan concept which just seems like a kind of massive workaround to me?

     

    Can you clarify exactly what a "horizontal section viewport" is though? When I look at the all my horizontal sections, they don't have a "display 2d components" option - but is this because of the way they are generated? Is this something to do with generating them from the clip cue rather than from an elevation view?

  20. I'm confused... is this "horizontal section" a new thing in VW2020? Is it some hybrid version of top/plan?

     

    A real horizontal section would not have this problem, because it would be looking at the actual 3d geometry of the 3d part of the stair object, and would know which bits of the stair were hidden by the slab.

     

    How do we end up with a situation where VW is suspending a 2d symbol in 3d space? It doesn't make any sense to me - either you stick with the top/plan concept of 2d symbols layered on each other, or you go proper 3d, and project the 3d geometry that's actually there.

×
×
  • Create New...