Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


2,380 Spectacular

Personal Information

  • Location
    Faroe Islands

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think that was the first thing I added when creating a custom template. Nevertheless I wonder so often how many not-from-my-template-Files I have to open and really need to again import my Render Style(s) from one of my own files ...... So it would not be that bad to have an option to edit VW's delivered default Render Styles (?) on App level ....
  2. But if I got it correct, (for me this is new) for custom Windows, not possible to create with VW Windows, adding custom Window geometries as Symbols inside the Window PIO is still a valid, if not recommended, Workflow ? My experience with such combinations from Revit Door imports so far was just .... - Door PIO Dimensions neither read/care of/take over actual Revit Door's nor their (simlified) Boundaries dimensions - All such Doors in VW just showed the same default VW Door dimensions - changing dimensions in Door PIO has no influence to Symbol Door geometry/is ignored (opposed to e.g. a custom Symbol for a Door Leaf - which would be simply scaled in such circumstances) - renaming the Symbols used in Doors in RM, leaded to breaking Links/loss of the geometry of these Doors (how to ever remember the overwritten (illegible) former Revit name or how to know which Symbol to reassign now ?)
  3. Sounds cool .... I meant, select 2 or more Solids : Menu > Model > Add Solids (Boolean Operation) "If applicable" .... that would be the easiest solution. I think keeping safety area volumes inside Fixture Symbols makes much sense. But I currently have no idea of how to workaround your transparency problem. Overall I think stacked transparency is the smaller problem ..... You can still examine the 3D model in shaded mode, look at it from all directions and easily see where potential objects might enter/collide with the safety area where they get partly occluded by the transparent Volume .... You may see it even better when 3-5 transparency layers overlap .... My only other ideas are, maybe even make volumes fill solid if you don't like the transparency effects and for temporary collision examination activate the safety area Classed or make them invisible again for designing or other purposes. Or control visibility by Data Visualization
  4. Don't need that often so not experienced. But I just assumed you could basically do the same with Symbols ... E.g. by Data Manager. I mean it was always proposed, if you can't get your desired Window by VW's Window Tool - use your own geometry in a Symbol and insert it into a Wall .... And I also heard that people insert Window PIOs in Symbols (to only make as much custom geometry manually as needed but still make use of Window's parametric comfort) But never before heard using Symbols in PIOs intentionally. I just know that feature exists from my Revit imports. Where my experience with that soon made me think that is pretty useless .... (For several reasons .....)
  5. Got it. I am not sure how this really works. I thought in the past, when Walls were more 2D-like organized, inserting a Symbol without a dedicated Cut Volume into a Wall, would cut automatically through the whole Wall depth and just use the overall Symbol boundary rectangle/cube as a "cutting" Profile (?) Then this should work for your standard rectangular geometry without manual cutting geometry part. (Or was it by adding Points to the Symbol standard geometry ?) And I am not sure how well Wall Closures accept/recognize inserted Symbols or extra Cut Volumes in general. My first thought would have been to play with the Window Settings, to make Wall closures using the "virtual" Window data. But not sure if Windows will treated completely different as soon as they are based on an "overall" custom Symbol. But maybe worth a try.
  6. I think it is not a Tool but a Command. "Compose" from the menu. Also thought about Revolve. But did not answer as I was not sure if it would work a) that way in general and b) with ellipses I thought about starting with circles and arcs or just by a globe and using 3D Manipulation Tools. Which in effect would just do a nonuniform scaling .... which may look pretty similar - but not the same as elliptical. And so far i assumed true Ellipses are mandatory.
  7. I don't think so. I think this is proper behavior of partly transparent objects occluding each other. Usually that is the way you want to achieve to make the geometry legible. And I can't remember to ever have seen such transparency effect you ask for, in any other CAD or 3D Software I used. I think you want these Volumes inside/being part of your Fixtures Symbols. Just like Plant Symbols can have such a safety area Volume for roots area of trees. Or I have seen similar for some building parts. So you do not really have access to the Volumes geometry. But so far I have not seen that such safety area dummies do overlap. In BIM these are used for collision detection. But if these overlap themselves it would not help the collision detection calculation either. The effect you want to achieve would mean or lead to combining these overlapping safety area Volumes by a Solid Addition. Which perfectly describe the whole tabu area .... That would also solve the Transparency effect and collision detection calculation or visual control legibility. But of course, separating safety area Volumes from Fixture Symbols would make future changes of Fixtures more tedious and probably more error prone.
  8. I do not really understand the reason why you insert your Symbol custom Windows into the Window PIO Container. Wouldn't horizontal Section (and probably Wall Closures) work better with Symbols directly inserted in Walls ? In this case you don't want 2D appearances replacing the true cut appearance. I think in a Wall cutting Symbol you could do so if you want. But I would think this would no more work if such a Symbol is "occluded" for 2D appearances when inside a PIO (?)
  9. I think C4D has not had the most flexible or capable customization interface I have seen .... E.g. Modo was far more capable. A Window Viewport could be anything, a Tool Palette, a Drawing Window, Render Preview, .... one developer even integrated a Tetris game into a Viewport. But how easy it was to screw up the whole GUI permanently. But by far the most easiest to use, understandable, predictable and reliable UI editing I have seen so far. Which is worth a lot !
  10. I thought about just numbers are easier in conversation. But I am not sure if marketing department will abdicate the positive impact of "Update". I was pretty OK with "Service Pack" in the past though. Pre VW 2024, VW had bugs and I was mainly happy to see them fixed by Service Packs. (If VW 2024 still would have bugs, I maybe would still even prioritize bug fixing over new features "updates" ...) And I always associated "Service Pack" with so positive feelings, like VW support caring of me or even getting a whole "Pack" of Service and such. "Update" feels a bit cold and impersonal.
  11. I think this is the problem .... If they need to edit the Viewports (!?) copy the Sheet Layers and name it in a way they will find it, send them the File copy (!?) If they need the SLVPs just to see what they edit/add/replace in the File (!?!?) offer them Project Sharing ? If Vectorworks would offer a Speckle Connector/Support, you could collaborate and each one would work in his own Branch of the Project and you could switch or merge branches like in Software Development. I am a bit confused. I would therefore recommend @Pat Stanford proposal .....
  12. So if I ever can update my old brain from embossed "SP" to "Update" I need a proper official abbreviation for forum conversation. VW UPD2 ? VW U2 ? EDIT : Solution > Settings / Keyboard / Replace Text
  13. I thought I had that yesterday too sporadicly. But I tried again today .... (Got a new Sonoma 14.2 Pubic Beta Update last night ...) Well, beside that I need to keep holding the B key .... It also seems to work fine here. Even when no Tool active. I can shake my cursor as much as I want .... my X-Ray bubble follows my cursor reliably.
  14. Sorry @Matt Panzer 🙂 Back on topic - with a Door. Just sketched that VW US Door from a photo for someone on the german Forum. As this configuration is said to no more working in 2024 CW Doors ..... (?) For fun I tried the new 2024 feature, to get a gap under the Leafs and set 1 cm. While creating, Preview in Door Settings looked first like adding the gap to the upper side !? But the gap below worked correctly in geometry. But now, when I look at that Door from Front View ..... It looks like the gap below the Leaf ..... (Why only below the Leaf ? I would like to set small gaps around the whole Leaf(s), when using same materials to make Jamb/Leaf visible in Renderings) .... is done by just moving Leafs in Z (?) When the Door selected it looks like the Leaf(s) overlap the Jamb. (I my case not Jamb but Mullion - because of the Transom) You can see the semi occluded Leaf Top Edge above the bottom Line of my Mullion (and under my dashed cross hair cursor) But what I really wanted to say that I think it may not be "WAD" .... In Front View, on Top of my Transom .... it looks like VW added a copy of my "under the Leaf gap" between Top of Transom and Top of Jamb !? And finally my Door File : Untitled 5.vwx
  • Create New...