zoomer

In VW 2024, for the first time, you can adjust the UI in 3 sizes. Will not change the Icons - but makes them bigger.

Somewhere on VW's website there was a feature comparison. There was a big cry when they lately excluded the Wall Tool. But I have seen a newsletter today where they recommend VW over SketchUp and Rhino : https://blog.vectorworks.net/why-you-should-choose-vectorworks-fundamentals-over-sketchup-and-rhino It has a table below that shows that C4D Export is still there ....

AFAIR I have Undo : 64 or more Backup : 8 or 16 Since I also switched to Actions instead of Time, my VW crashes went down significantly !

I like the new Icons much better. I also still need to get used to the new Icons as some changed a bit overall. But usually, beside watching, I recognize my Icons 50% by muscle memory. And I manually sort my Palettes and Menus in my custom Workspace. Mainly the Basic Palette which I have heavily customized in content and sorting order. I have docked it at the bottom under the view window as a long row. When I see the same Palette in the SPACEBAR HUD in standard portrait mode, I have to watch and search for Icons too 🙂

OK ..... So it looks like everyone really hates that new Sonoma feature and I am the only one profiting from such helpers ..... (I might getting too old now 🙂) I would agree when you all start your Feedback-Assistant App (*) and tell Tim Cook that this feature should be only optional and its activation located in the Accessibility Settings .... (*) At least you get a Feedback-Assistant App on your machine when you participate in macOS Public Betas ... It works a bit like crying your wishes into the woods - kind of a monolog .... But every now and then with a newer macOS version some of your complaints are solved. But I am not sure if that is correlated in any way ....

Lines vs open Polygons too ? (Just kidding) If it helps for reports and calculations, I would be OK with sorting VW Rectangles into a global (closed) Polyline scheme .... as long as all "Rectangle-features" are somehow mimicked be Edit Tools or similar. On the other hand, I often used and want, to keep the ability to magic-wand-select only (true) Rectangles vs other 2D geometry. So I do think that in the reports case, I would rather like to see that change/feature include into the features of Reports (?) For the initial Rectangle to Polygon Conversion task, I could live much easier with that, when Reshape Tool automatically destroys Rectangles, when you grab a Vertex (as long as there is no better solution). BTW, AFAIR, could even be that there is an old post somewhere in the Forum where I wished exactly for the same thing, that it would be more consistent if Reshape Tool does an Auto convert to Polyline. But only if needed as a Vertex is grabbed in Vertex Mode .... But that was surely before I learned to love VW Rectangles and their reliability ....

AFAIK there was already another Thread about this, which I also upvoted. Everything that does not necessarily needs an opened file should be also available from Start Screen without any file loaded.

If I remember correctly, since we got that setting for view mode when switching between 2D and 3D, I had ideas for improvements, but now I could live with it well. AFAIR it was a few VW versions later when VW started to ignore that settings in Edit Modes (at least Symbols ?) But AFAIK there was never an other setting option for Symbol editing. And if I got that correct, that 2D/3D switch definition setting is gone in VW 2024 (or hidden in another location ?) but it seems to still works reasonable for me in View Window. And I tried to open a Symbol, it opened in a 3D View but in Wireframe which is not my preferred setting. But after switching to Top Plan View and back to 3D View, it went to Shaded automatically. If this adapts to all of my (File migrated) Symbols after I enter Edit Mode in VW 2024, that is OK for me ....

I LIKE THAT INDICATOR ! AS I OFTEN ACCIDENTALLY PRESS CAPS LOCK WHEN I MEANT JUST SHIFT .... BTW, FOR ME THE ARROW IS ORANGE, AS IT USES THE HIGHLIGHT COLOR SETTINGS.

I do not really get why VW uses 80GB of RAM. I assume VW just forgets to free the RAM again after the files are saved and closed (?) For me it looks like batch convert opens, after each other, each file to convert and save. Maybe it opens more than a single file at once for multithreading but I never have seen more than 3 File Tabs when batch converting. I assume, currently VW grabs new RAM for each new file to convert but gives RAM back only after batch convert has finished all jobs. If this is the case, I think the only option to avoid that is to start batch convert with small parts from all files. I think this may be not comfortable but feasible - as I also assume that 1000+ files may not lay in a single file folder but in some sub folders (?)

Basically what I tried to say 🙂

Uhm, it makes me always nervous when I look at Airport closeups and see crossing runways or even taxiways crossing runways. Like Zurich Airport in Switzerland. Yours is a quite mild example, but still ... they could meet if things happen. Unfortunately no clue about your scaling problem as I am a georeference novice and do not know how to officially dimension a runway. I personally am not used to which georef system I have to choose from. So I realize that often the coordinates I read out of web maps will lead to an offset of the site in VW which I think is also a scaling/georef distortion standard thing. Once I got the correct position of my site, the Geoimage looked reasonable in scale .... But not sure if that has anything to do with your case.

For me the Rectangle Object is one of the greatest VW features. I think it is great that it tries to stay a Rectangle. For me it is reasonable to need to convert it first to be able to destroy it. (I think I have "Convert to Polygon" in my RMB "object mode" option menu) I always get crazy when in DWG Apps, a Rectangle is just a mere Polyline and so easily distorted accidentally. And a VW Rectangle has so many unique and cool features. (OIP Action Center radio buttons, length/width auto adjust, option to keep aspect ratio when scaling, ....)

Not sure where the original geometry is coming from. A generic Solid in VW, OK, so as said above. If it is still a VW Extrude, maybe I would like to keep it an Extrude with modeling history, so enter the Edit Mode, do the operation with the 2D Toolset in the Profile ....

I misunderstood the red line to be a Fillet. That would have made it possibly more difficult, at least in earlier PushPullTool versions (?) But would never come to the idea of moving the red marked Edge as indicated for Sketchup (?) (in any of my current or previous CAD Apps, but opposed to Sketchup as a Face Modeler, these were all Solid Modelers) As I would fear that the the extension for that curved Face would be extended by the linear Face instead that way. And I would fear that the snapping point - where to reposition that red edge would not fit. I would have immediately gone to the PushPullTool. I would select that little linear Face and PPT-pull it, over the related area, into the left area. Usually PPT action would extend the curved Face safely this way and reliably close that gap. And if there would really have been a fillet in that red edge, some of my CAD's would have needed to PushPull to the end of the Fillet first, before being able to again PushPull the little Face over the whole void in a second step to finally close that gap.

I think what a typical VW user would do would be : - Draw the larger (bounding box) Rectangle - draw the smaller Rectangle (for the void) on top of it - select both > Clip Surface - void Rectangle stays selected > delete This is your base 2D geometry Now either in 2D Mode : - setup and use (2D) Fillet Tool to round those 4 corners - Extrude - 3D Rotate for correct orientation Or the 3D way : (which saves modeling history) - directly Extrude that Polygon - (3D) Fillet Edge Tool for these 4 corners. ----------------------- Usually for Extrudes in VW it is better to do as much features in 2D as possible before extruding. As most 2D tools are superior than 3D Tools and for roundings it may be more reliable when further editing. On the other hand, the 3D Tools have a history for later changes. So a full 3D approach would be : - draw top view bounding Rectangle, directly extrude to bench height - either copy that cube for void Cube and PushPull or .... or ... to adapt dimensions - do a Solid Subtraction - Fillet Edge Tool for these 4 corners. This way you can always do changes later by double clicking the bench and enter or navigate between different features. Like the Solid Subtraction, editing base or cutting cube, adapting features like Fillets (which is a relatively new 3D comfort feature), and so on.

I am pretty sure that VW 2018 is no more supported on a Mac that runs macOS 13 or 14 Sonoma and very unlikely to run at all. Do you have access to any Mac with an old macOS from 2016-2020 where you could install your VW 2018 ?

I also had industrial grates in the past. technical stuff floor on top of the flat roof. Of course it would have been so great to se a "view angle dependent" transparancy for birds eye views. So if it is ever possible with real geometry I would do this. Maybe at least in the future. I should try and test again to see what is possible already today, with structural members, grates, metal stairs, scaffolding and all that stuff. Maybe we can already do drilling platforms in BIM ....

But as far as I know, Bricscad BIM users build a real geometry Block of each grate version and just spread them in their drawing. (Likely Revit users will build them from Walls) And I think real time solutions like Twinmotion would not have any problems such geometry. (If you can spread millions of vegatation ....) And now with Lumen and maybe Nanite in the future .... But I think do not try this with RW Rendering.

I once had such a sheet metal grid ceiling in an office building in a large area. I even tried a displacement texture (geometry nearly reasonable at only max quality settings and render times) or a Symbol with a square meter of real geometry .... So I gave up and decided to even try without transparency as it will never look like having some Z height. My Idea was to create a flat 2D Texture for one opening from a top view, meaning, in suitable pixel dimensions, starting from the image boarder : - the Material thickness and color (bright gray in my case - a darker background color part in the center - and a gradient between border and center color in between. So this basically would only look reasonable, watching from below, for only exactly that single opening directly perpendicular to your camera of course. As that 2D texture can't ever mimic that perspective and 3D depth effect. So I could render that perspective with grid ceiling by a single extrude and without any increase in render time. Unexpectedly the client said, ah yes, good, that is exactly how these things appear in reality (!?) So as there are soon again any floor grates comming for me, I will try that again .... EDIT : Found the Texture again : As I see I even got rid of the gradient between border and center ....

See no problems with Sonoma and VW either. But since macOS 13 I notice more and more little annoyances everywhere. And Sonoma for me seems even a bit worse. Things like after system sleep Wacom Cintiq display not finding signal and going into suspend, or warnings not correctly ejected external drives, little issues in Weather App, lots of annoyances with Mail and also Safari, ..... Feels a bit like my past with Windows XP and 2000. I entered first Public Beta with Big Sur because I was so tired of the older Apple GUI. This and following Public Betas were always flawless experience. The last 2 macOS and Public Betas had more and more serious issues. But I have to state that still the Public Betas for me always worked better than any of the official releases in between.

I also think about waiting for M3. But I am waiting basically since 2009 for a useful Apple workstation. (while the nearest was the last Intel 27" iMac 2018 ? But only for half a year) And M1 Studio Ultra did not scale well, so with the M2 Studio we finally have the first reasonable Apple Desktop for CAD, 3D and a bit of Rendering. Nothing fancy like my first 2007 Mac Pro 2.1, but even a bit more reasonable than my interims Trash Can, which I had to use for another 6-8 years. But expected M3 hardware support for RT will be a first gen RT anyway. And if I look at the new A17 in iPhone Pro, it doesn't either look that much fancy 3nm and M3 as I would have expected. Neither CPU or GPU cores got much faster nor does the battery runs longer. (Or maybe just another cheaper interims Mac like a Studio Max, or a laptop ?) So it is obviously worth to also wait for M4 or M5 🙂 But I'm tired of waiting. I don't want to get more tired by waiting until I retire ....

Not sure if you meant it that way .... Global Illumination is the calculation of indirect light bouncing between objects. Ambient light is an ancient tool to try to fake indirect light, from times when there was only direct light calculation in rendering. I just brightens everything equally, no matter what face orientation or else. It makes everything looking flat. And Materials had a Specular Channel to try to mimic highlights from light sources on objects (today in PBR times part of Reflection) So if already spending the render time cost of GI calculation, you may go the PBR way. Ambient light is neither needed nor helps so it should be always off. AFAIR in VW you need Ambient activated just to be able to reach Ambient Occlusion but set the slider to zero. (Ambient Occlusion is also a fake and not PBR. But OK for me as you can safe some render time by reducing GI sample quality and cheap AO will do the nuances in little details which the reduced GI setting leaves out. So Redshift Denoising may be something else than I am used to. Usually Denoising is a reasonable fast algorithm, similar to photo editing where you reduce the digital camera grain in low light shots. (usually Denoisers are optimized by camera profiles with their typical kind of noise) Its meaning is to save render time by stopping the render process at an earlier state, when it has already good GI quality but is still grainy but letting faster Denoising getting rid of the grain. If the denoising takes longer than the time you save by lower sampling quality, it doesn't really make any sense. Not sure what Redshift's denoiser does or is. Another approach in real time games is rendering only half the resolution and scale it by AI help. Usually that is much faster and the result looks nearly exactly like a full res render, sometimes it looks even better. Especially Nvidia GPUs offer hardware acceleration for all these tasks. Raytracing, Denoising, AI Upscaling, .....

I still prefer old school RW Renderer (C4D physical CPU Renderer), as it is more predictable to me. (Have not seen any better quality or any render time reduction in my poor tests. But I think Denoising is not bad. It allows to render at lower samples (faster) and cleaning the noise instead. Also for interiors, I would not reduce light bounces. From the C4D side, there are settings that are not that very render time consuming for bounces, but I am not sure what settings/engine VW defaults to of C4D engine. Maybe that has changed. I usually start my RW Renders with medium settings overall but increase Indirect Lighting quality. Antialias I keep in medium or high as this may be time consuming. Another thing for GI is that you should not use Materials with a pure white color in large areas, as it makes indirect light calculation bounce forever as there is no absorption. A perfect white painted Wall may reflect 85% of light at best, so I set my white paint to either 80% brightness or choose a 80% white/20% black diffuse color. But from the screenshot that doesn't look to be the case. And I usually go down to 150 DPI for rendered SL's - as I can't wait that long.

I think the settings look quite reasonable.