zoomer

+1 +1 +1

Ah, they touch. Honestly I think that is a cool feature (Like when touching walls where you need different styles for some reason) As I have similar geometry for my wood plank floors outside. Because mine had, like all multi extrudes i did so far, gaps between each other.

Since many years Polygon Modelers prefer Quad Meshes. Those triangulated meshes there only appear if one imported geometry by an outdated import format like 3DS or from "some" CAD Apps. If you exchange between Polygon Modelers by current formats like FBX the Quads remain. Triangulation is just a legacy option. Oh, I feared that would be 3D Polys. At least normal 2D Polys. Just not looking as before.

Yes, just the simple fast Elevation Viewport that works similar the Top Plan render. But with a little control what you will see. Like that Wall beside my Building that I want to see in all Elevations, except the North Elevation as it blocks visibility of my whole Building. (Marked as dashed or dotted line welcome also) Currently this will force me to use a Section Viewport which takes much longer to calculate, second I'm not sure if I could even get the same look. The second part is something I've seen somewhere else and is related to many wishes from others about the need of showing some depth in 2D Viewports, for things that are far behind, by smaller stroke Thickness or similar, to make 2D drawings better readable.

+1

There it is. But for me it looks a bit different like the VP. Lot's of ghost lines created ?

I also think this should be the only way to go in BIM. And not to have any dead unlinked 2D drawings. But there shouldn't be ANY unwanted or missing lines at all in Viewports. Looks like I saw solutions where that seems to work. Each mask or annotation is again dead and unlinked, so error prone. As it (VW) is, I understand the current wish for dismantled Viewports though. Or that many people seem to draw these 2D from scratch or work 2D only to keep control. And I thought there is a way to convert Viewports ? Does this work for Design Layer Viewports only ?

I wish that Elevation Viewports have the ability to set the front and back Clipping Plane. (Without the need to create a Section Viewport) I have a large wall beside my building and would like to see my building though. Better add a plane after which Geometry gets displayed reduced or dimmed too. And BTW I want to set front and back clipping planes in my orthogonal view windows directly too (with % sliders ?)

Do you mean the texture mapping or want to assign different materials ? Beside I don't see any differences between a bunch of single extrudes or a multi extrude in rendering - all appear Did I miss something ?

I thought you can dismantle Viewports. Just tried CMD+K + CMD+U but got a Bitmap only

I can't stand all Auto Classes. Doesn't mean that I would not prefer Auto Classing. But I want control over each class name ! Second, if we haven't, and plugin objects come with unwanted default classes. I want to at least be able to pick more than one single class only at one time to assign my own classes to, for example, the Windows Tool.

I never used that custom renderworks style and really question if that redundancy should exist at all. 1. You pick one of the realistic render styles, like "realistic exterior fast" to render your model for the first time. 2. It gets copied to the resource browser like any other Wall/Slab//or other style Also it will be displayed on top of the render style dropdown list. 3. You give it a readable name 4. You adapt the settings to your scene 5. You duplicate it from there to create additional styles for different purposes, like preview/final, day/night, white/color, ... These will be "real" custom styles.

I don't print at all. Sometimes I update all Viewports, it shows all updated, do nothing except opening a Sheet Layer and some VPs have the out of date frames again. There are other possibilities where geometry didn't change too.

I also don't really know causes VP's exactly to make them warn being outdated. Maybe therefore the "don't/show out of date markers" feature was implemented. So +1 for for outdated when outdated only.

Or plant flowers if yellow, tress if green, ponds if blue and stone paths if black ...

I think VW 2014 to VW 2015 was no issue. For me, as VW 2016 changed the Rendering System, the renders looked different and there was a lot work finding suitable render settings for difficult interior situations again. And the client asked for the "same" look as he was presenting these in comparison to the older renders. Normally converting a file to a new App version should be no problem. If there will be a little feature update to the stair tool, your stair should still look the same. But as you will never know, it is a good idea to examine the new file copy if it really works the same until you go on working in the new version. A more important thing is App SP0 stability. You should test your workflow, if there are bigger quirks concerning your work you should wait until fixed. Like VW 2016 started to kill my Cameras which it still does so maybe I should have waited until SP5 comes out.

Googleing VW Help brought this : http://app- help.vectorworks.net/2016/eng/index.htm#t=VW2016_Guide%2FMiscellaneous%2FLayer_Linking.htm&rhsearch=layer%20links&rhhlterm=layer%20links&rhsyns=%20 I hear that for the first time ....

I'm not sure if I got you right but is this maybe an issue with "Unified View" set to off or unwanted sub-settings of it ?

It is wise and professional to keep projects in their original software version and it is wise to not even use a software or OS before SP2. But less thrilling and emotional.

That makes much sense. But users don't. For me, as soon as the new version is downloaded there will be a project copy opened. They stay beside each other until it works. Sometimes I even keep both versions in sync for months. Some projects started in the VW 2014 area, I don't want to work in VW 2014 anymore. And there was often a lot of work to do to to bring older projects in a new VW version.

All Floor Slabs were set to floor against ground. Roof Slab was set as a roof. Just because elimination of the Finish Floor Slabs from calculation makes the Slab Package better, I think Energos treats these Slab Sandwiches in a kind of (1/Ra + 1/Rb) /2 instead of resulting R = Ra + Rb So the more Layers you add, the less will be the resulting R Value.

Depends if we get their release build soon enough, but most likely that will come in SP1, it's been that way a few years now. I have not had time to test it personally yet this year, but from what I have heard 2016 does NOT run properly on the current MacOS 10.12 beta however, so I do not recommend it on any production machines for the time being. Ah, ok. Forgot that could influence 2016 too. Nevertheless, as an early adopter I couldn't hold myself from OS X updating more than 2 days after release. I rather risk a VW pause That worked ok the last years beside some smaller things. No guarantee of course. That would not work with the year number in the name. Now one would buy an outdated VW.

1. Yes, I think I should have kept my Roof and Foundation Story. (I misunderstood the Energos settings which had 2-Story Buildings only and replaced these and solved the heights with Story Levels only) 2. Even four. Floor Slab, Floors, Roof Slab + the lowered Floor Slab 3. That makes sense. (but have to admit that manually adding IFC Tags in the way VW offers, is not much fun to me)

Nice. So you could also place Skyscrapers where pixels are white, smaller buildings for gray, ....

Will VW 2017 be macOS 10.12 Sierra ready ?