zoomer

Thanks Allen. Didn't even came to the idea that I could overwrite texturing by object for a wall by components. Nevertheless I have many occasions where I need to see ALL components. I come more and more to the conclusion that I should always work by object and draw each component as a separate wall. And as this will not work together with Windows and Doors and those Arch Object don't have useful geometries for exports anyway, I should limit my 3D work to Generic solids These work.

Sorry no, I can't remember. I played everywhere. I have strict grids through the whole building and surroundings, so I wanted to use the same grids for texture tilings. There was a second problem with brick or tile shaders, that you have to take account the grout width into your Texture grid size, which I forgot. After that was solved I saw at one point that everything fits fine like a projection planar or cube mapping would do. So maybe all my playing and tries to edit mapping styles did nothing than keep the default ? Normally VW starts a texture at a corner of each surface. That is why nothing fits together. I think this is also the case for walls. Currently I can't either force access of the "use world origin" or perimeter mapping for component walls by also selecting other geometry, nor can I set correct texture positions with a simple extrude correctly Oh, and I see, some of my walls mappings don't work anymore correctly. I think you mustn't move objects after a material was applied. I gets more and more terrible as more you look into it. I will stop now before I get annoyed.

It doesn't switch automatically too but you can create as much heliodons as you want and activate one at a time in light lister. At least easier than edit changes all the time in one Heliodon.

Attribute mapping tool doesn't work for BIM Objects like walls too (?) I always use "by components". I somehow managed to get my Walls/Component working in the "Perimeter" Style and world position from origin. I think I selected them together with an Extrude or something to reach the perimeter + world setting.

I don't think that is possible. There is only one Material System for OpenGL and RW. I think it is fine that OpenGL can use the RW Materials at all and displays "some" of its features like transparency and image textures. If it is related to some parts only, duplicated objects controlled by classes for one of each render mode with different materials may be a valid workaround.

Ah ? Not sure if I got that correctly. You can set both OpenGL and RW to use or not use textures and colors (=>white) So if you deactivate Textures you will get standard object or class fill colors. If you deactivate Colors, you will get a white gypsum rendering. But if you keep activated Textures you will still get Transparency for glass or Bump, Reflections (in RW only)

Well, I saw in my own tests, Text and Dimensions are not usable in 1:1 DL's For me, 3D, that means that i have to set all DL's scale to the same scale like the typical 2D output for now. Not a big deal. Also, Unified View, once activated and edited its preferences and never touched again works ok. What would happen ? You HAVE to use Sheet Layers and Viewports. All 2D (Line Thicknesses ?), Dimensions and Text happens in VP Annotations ONLY Is that possible at all ? (Constrained Dimensions, ....) Or should we better renounce of Sheet Layers at all in 3D BIM too and use Design Layer Viewports only - with different Scales Many of you seem to be fixed on printing. Currently the whole VW including RW is totally fixed in printing units, paper sizes and DPI only and fixed to an ancient medium. In a way that it limits myself even from saving a rendering in a special pixel amount = quality. But the amount of information is totally independent of output size. I think the target of BIM is to work on the model only, not the output itself. From there the output will be generated - for every kind of output medium, that is depending on the kind of information. PDF is only one special form of it. It is the amount of information put in the 6D Model and quality of software that is responsible for the output quality. But if all people from construction site will walk around with tablets or google glasses anyway, why 2D PDF only and not directly 3D or more "D".

I have 2 approaches. 1. the BIM Setup All Architectural Objects itself are in their Main Class like "WALL" All of its Components are in parented Sub-Classes like "WALL-CONCRETE" This way you keep class hierarchy sorting, can deactivate whole windows or single components. 2. the "Visualization" Setup All Architectural Objects itself are in their Main Classes like "A_WALL" All Components in general are in Material Classes like "M_CONCRETE" The prefixes are for sorting by name and to separate both class types. This is a similar approach to the Layer/Class System in VW. Main Classes act like Layers, Material Classes act like Classes. In that way you will have only one Material "M_Glass-Clear" that will include both, Door and Window Parts made from clear Glass. And all other custom geometry made from clear Glass. But because the BIM Objects behave similar to Symbols, you can deactivate the Door Class to work on Window's glass only.

I love DM's videos, creative misuse of VW and projects. Like a great playground. Also he is the king of the forum concerning the flying time of his 3DConnexion space navigator.

OK, so if all that new SL Viewport stuff is not used, everything happens on DL's. Print/Publish is controlled by saved views. And Title Blocks in 1:1 is an example that I understand why different Scales at the same time happen. (Wait ... why not "Real World" Title Block sizes as big as parking spaces ?) That UV + Layer Scale thing was a bit discussed some time ago too. At that time it sounded like there would be only a hand full of users still demanding that feature. In this Thread it sounds more like half of the US user base. Especially people that normally don't contribute that much to the forum. So there may be a lot of users sad if that feature would retire one day. I think the solution is to just prevent the 3D users from any drawbacks caused by those features. Therefore I switched a project to 1:1 DL to look deeper into what these bad influences may be. Indeed it requires heavy zooming out each time I switch from SLs backt to DLs. EDIT : Even when swithing from a Camera Perspaktive back to Top PLAN !!!) When changing DL scales, there was a checkbox to "scale text". That either worked well, or, I don't know how I set my text exactly, in world units. If that will work with dimension text and numbers too, I think I could live with the current state. (But wasn't it until 2015, that VW automatically "zoomed to objects" when switching views, or juts a lucky DL scale selection by me ?)

It is a material with (nearly) black diffuse color and some (very) blurry reflections. Because the whole appearance is done by the reflections, there has to be a suitable environment and lights that will be reflected.

I would say your idea would be a nice UI improvement.

When I first noticed Layer Scales in VW I expected different appearances of architectural objects. Like being showed in a reduced manner if you go from 1:50 to 1:100 or 1:200. Looks we are far from that. But to summarize if I got it now : 1. Layer Scales are used in plain 2D only 2. Unified View Off is used in plain 2D only 3. People who use both don't leave Plan View mode 4. There will be Layers with different Scales on the screen at the same time Are Architectural Elements used nevertheless, in 2D only ? (without caring about Z heights) And if Sheet Layers not used, they will be printed from Design Layers ?

I think there was no real extra costs when I upgraded again from Prime to Visualize short after my R17 Release. There is the upgrade price + higher MSA fee. That didn't help much for RW at the end so far. At least no more plugin warnings. Hope that VW 17 will change that. Ooops, I've overseen that. I'm scared.

+1

Hmmh, have not installed the App so far but watched the keynote video. Can't get rid of the feeling that both VW and AC try to get exactly the same feature set. Energy calculation in AC, VW brings Energos some years later, Marionette in VW, AC 20 brings Grasshopper one year later, .... While Marionette inside VW sounds to work well on the forums, that real time AC-Rhino connection looks absolutely great when you can use Rhino geometry in AC and even get BIM objects from it in AC. I am most jealous about the optical work on their UI. The german critics about AC was that they never updated their old wall tools and still have no story levels. But I think I have to look in the App if that is really worse. As I'm not quite happy with these in VW too.

At least one person on the german forum will be really happy about this. Although I found a very creative workaround by applying a gradient with 2 times the same color but transparency. Little tedious but the outline will stay opaque

Oh, of course, that makes sense. (both)

I like it. My most used word (beside just and simple) But what does it mean ? But someone has to create the UIOP icons of the plant tool anyway ?

Isn't the advantage of projection mappings that they ignore all possible UVs or dependencies and overwrite everything as they happen from outside in the renderer. The C4D engine dose not know if there is a window or door. Just a mesh like any else that has applied that material. Aren't those mapping dependancies in BIM objects related to hatches and those things only in that case ? I'ld be happy with cubic mapping only, even planar only. But be able to edit U and V independently. In position, scale and rotation. And no problem with adding that globally to the material only, like it is done now. The need for a rotated version needs a material duplicate which has to be done as it is also. Nicer of course, similar to C4D, to be able to overwrite that on object or class base. (C4D does by object only, which not cool at all, as you have to always select all assignments when you need to edit them) 1. this and 2. Just because of that Exchange. Which does not work if things are not exactly the same type and settings on both sides. So I wish to get the complete Material settings like Archicad got and that there is no need redo mapping. The typical synchronization problem when editing things on both sides. It has to somehow work like VW multiuser project. Both connected and checking parts out and lock them on the other side. Currently, if you do edits in C4D, which marks things edited to prevent them from being overwritten, you loose synchronization for more and more parts as more often you synchronize. If you do some class rearrangements in C4D because it can't sort by name. Delete it later in VW but it will stay in C4D. And it is not oversee able what will happen with geometry. It is not a big problem to keep cameras, lighting and render settings separate. Of course you need to change both manually in some cases. And you can face the strange material and texture duplication and renaming by an optimized class setup to bring it to an acceptable level. But Geometry, Material, Class compatibility should be at a level that will allow to do all these changes in VW only, to keep the update function over time. Of course, if both would use the same synchronized file data base and it doesn't matter where to edit things would be much cooler.

OK. I thought these will happen in annotations on sheet layers. Impractical ? Because, if you move a wall, you will not see that it can then hide a text field and you have to switch to SL to reorder ? So you want to draw your 2D plans on DL exactly as they will appear on final DLVP ? Align Sections and Elevations beside the Plans to snap to it and those things like I did on paper with my Mayline and ink ? If you do Details, you don't have a VP or Layer from plan under it but copy geometry parts of the plan over ? No assessment intended at all. The problem with unified view, which was once off by default and its options like hide different scales is, that VW starters, me included, always ran into things like : I started drawing 3D. Now want to view results in 3D but I can see only one Layer, although all set visible or strange orientations in space. Even set correctly, that happens for me when updating SLVPs that parts of the plan drawings appear in isometric instead of orthogonal. And that setting DL to 1:1 somehow has some drawbacks in View Navigation or other things.

I will remind you. As you know my talent to avoid off topic postings it is spread over many threads I think this one covers most : https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=223325 I too think have experienced further issues with SP4 like problems after changing active layer. The main problems with cameras arbitrarily jumping to origin or completely to nirvana, multiple camera activation, unwanted activation of view crop or so persisted from SP 0-4 for me so far.

On the other hand, someone touched the cameras to add new features and now I can't use them anymore for a whole release cycle.

+ 100 But I don't think that users that ask for UV Mapping are really thinking of a complete UV unfolding system. But the most basic projection mappings like planar, cubic, cylindrical, spherical, ... should work. And these are quite rudimentary currently in RW and uncomfortable to use. Plus some fake or workaround options to allow path extrudes and such to be mapped reasonably looking for landscapers.

And I always thought your day would start many hours before mine I could bring in some quotes from the forum but that wouldn't be fair. If I remember correctly that has finally reached the responsible developers. And we heard that there is an ambition to better C4D exchange even in 2 directions, I think your wish and many other improvements will fall out as a side effect for compatibility reasons. Ok, until now the role of RW is really dubious.