zoomer

Not at all. I think VW runs on Mac at least as good as on PC, if not better. (But honestly I started VW after switching from PC to Mac) For Mac in general, my first years after switching to Mac where absolutely great from 2007 to 2012. But honestly all following years seeing degrading of Mac Mini, degrading of OSX for iOS/iPadOS compatibility, missing "Pro" hardware offers, "what is a computer ?" adds, questionable price worthiness, diminishing support from 3D Software because of Nvidia Cuda and OpenGL support, collapsing butterfly keyboards, ..... Frustration got endless. But it is ok or better again since Apple's switch to ARM. Plus another 3+ years to a finally mature to a M3 (and +) Max/Ultra version of a Mac Studio, which should hopefully arrive during the next 4+ months. But for VW, if a Mac fits generally for you - for VW itself, a no brainer.

Haha, no chance. The Default Level Duplicates even happen when you just edit the Default Level height after you already applied it in Stories. The Duplicates will only disappear when you deleted/unchecked/replaced them for any Story. Once no more used it will just disappear - automatically. But in your case - if I got that right - you want to change that Default Level height just for one Story - but keep all other Stories using the "original" Default Level. This way the Duplicate stays in use and no chance to get rid of it. As I usually also need a way to set delta height offsets for "Default" Levels for certain special Stories - and Story/Levels is unfortunately designed that way I renounce of using Default Stories completely. I just define the "possible Level Names", and assign/add these Levels manually (sic!) for each Story by myself - this way I can set the delta height from Story individually for each Story as much as I like. OK, may be a quite tedious workaround for buildings with 5+ Stories or more. But controlling such duplicates, I managed to have up to 4 of these per Story, (together with VW's inability to show or have more than one panel active) you totally lose control of which of both would be the correct Level duplicate activated in this Story ...... and you can't go out to check your forgotten offsets, without the need to leave the dialog.

For me that looks like standard highlight color for selected/active elements you have chosen in your Windows Settings. (On Windows I set blue, on macOS I use orange) If this is valid for VW only and not also all other Apps, it would be strange. I do not see it highlighted here on Mac for the Navigation Palette header though :

It depends on the specific Project, or better how standardized or not. To be more precise, I delete those Default Levels for which : - it is likely that changes will happen - these need individual heights per Story So for a complicated two story residential building + cellar and foundation, I will likely prefer to do all manually without any disturbing Default Levels, e.g assigning Levels to Stories. BTW I also deactivated any auto Layer creation from Levels, although manually attaching a Layer to a Story is also cumbersome, as long as VW adds the previous Layer height or other delta height to the Stories height ..... Of course, already just for naming and spelling. But I also would love to have working Default Levels. As long as they are linked to Stories and update Default Layer Changes AND when there is a way to overwrite these locally in a Story. (In a way that it does not lead to multiple same name Level entries in Stories)

Hmmh, I think for my imported IFC Container Objects, snapping did not need a nesting level to fail. Or maybe there was another group in there, so one level. I do not know of any workaround. I collapsed the Containers .... But that doesn't sound like a solution.

Absolutely. That's what I expected when Story Levels were released. Meanwhile, as they are .... I delete (nearly) all Default Levels. I just "define" Level Names in the Levels list and apply them manually for each Story.

I think this is not possible. But as VW Stair handrails often does not meet users expectations anyway, many switch Stair handrail off and use the separate Railing Tool to add these separately.

Yes, Organization Palette in Visibility mode is a must from time to time. I use it to check or correct my Class and Layer Visibilities for Saved Views and Viewports. Especially for DLVP References, where you have multiple VPs from a single file, like divided by Stories and such. Or when you update the Reference with a new file. E.g. you may select all to set all Class Visibilities at a time but selectively set Layer Visibility for each individually.

A workaround may be to Sketch the Walls and apply associated Dimensions. You can then edit the Dimension to force moving the Walls into place. As said VW measures Wall lengths by their middle line. Which isn't very helpful for L-connected Wall corners. And you can edit the Wall Length in OIP. (But may need to do some math to subtract one or two Wall thicknesses ....)

Indeed. But I think this is something that Apple swaps to SSD first. That is why you can you can work with lots of open Apps on a 8 GB Mac Mini. It will just take a bit of time when you open such an orphaned browser tab again when it needs to load back in to memory. But unfortunately that will not work when a single App like VW needs more memory than physically available. I will lag heavily and be no fun to use.

I haven't tried it so far.

Any Elements Z value in OIP should have a dropdown to select if it applies to its Layer height or as an offset to a Story Level (?) (At least to those Story Levels that relate to its Layer .... when bound to a Story that contains Levels ?) Oh wait, then when every Element belongs to a Story and Level .... why do we still need Layers ? It gets complicated for me here. At least all PIOs should have a general Level binding (As most do, like Walls or Stairs, but so far e.g. Doors and Windows don't) AND PIOs should have Component bindings. (As most do, like Walls or Stairs) E.g. Windows should derive their overall height from Sill and top Level. Standard non-PIO Elements or Symbols may only need a general overall Level binding. Or do we need e.g. Extrudes defined by top and bottom Levels (?) I am not sure if a coping could/should be already part of a Wall Style (Like a control over a Wall End appearance when not connected ? controlled by Wall Closure Settings ??)

That sounds like a solution ... we just pack everything we want to control by a story Level - into a Symbol 😉

Unfortunately.

https://www.vectorworksforum.eu/topic/24950-diskurs-vectorworks-architektur-vs-archicad/#comment-111148 Somehow that was veeeeery hard to find again with the forum search. At first I thought it would have been deleted ..... I learned that you have to search exactly for "ArchiCAD"

Not really, as my experience was back from testing it in 2010 and later only in exchanging VW/Archicad with a colleague. At that time here was no GUI update, Apple ARM compatibility, IFC4, Viewport refresh in background, Cinerender, .... I just remember that for me it was quite intuitive, I could model what I needed, plan generation was easy and the results of my 2010 IFC 2x3 exports still meets current standards. I initially worked through one video tutorial and after that I successfully modeled an existing residential building. But AFAIR there were a few others, experienced with more recent Archicad versions, on this forum. And I know that there is a more comprehensive thread about pros and cons of VW vs Archicad on the german VW forum. I would search the Archicad Forum for potential issues and/or test the Archicad trial.

And you have to check that really all related Classes have "Use at creation" checked. AFAIK otherwise Objects brought over from other Classes will not adapt to new Class Attributes. And AFAIR in such cases where Objects are set by Object, VW will throw a warning and ask what to do. Change to by Class or .... (?)

Hmmh, in VW for "batch rendering" I usually use SLVPs and Publish ...... For me that worked basically like C4D's Render Take Manager Batch Rendering. Also allows to set different Versions or Geometries by Layer/Class Visibilities, different Render Settings, Exposures, Cameras, ....... Not sure if I really could batch render just Viewports only, (I usually only rendered 4 Elevations on a Sheet and such) but it should work by setting a Sheet for each single VP and fight against printer, paper and DPI size settings to finally get just a desired Pixel Image at desired resolution. I never understood why VW forever lacks any option to just easily save out a Rendering with a defined Pixel resolution.

Hmmh, I am careful and usually try 3-5 different keywords per search. And sometimes I go into options but that rarely gave better results. As I use Duckduckgo that wouldn't help much 🙂 (but honestly I never tried - should do) But much better than my latest search attempts in Apple Preview. So I'll continue to fight with the VW Forum search. (the german forum search is usually much worse)

Sometimes the University Site was simply temporarily down for me or sometimes it said I could not watch a certain course video because of my browser privacy settings (?) while I could watch any other courses. Usually I try a few hours later again.

Really .... I am sure I will forget about that next time. I was so conditioned that you have to be in a 3D View when exporting 3D. And as I rarely do any 2D ..... And even lately someone from VW said for IFC (?) you also need to export from a top plan view.

Something I don't really like. Or that every arbitrary day someone seems to win the VSS fee increase lottery.

My experience with CAD/BIM Software is that you have to watch the overall package and get used to it. In all presentations or training I had in the past, all questions about a certain special workflow ("how you do this") were absolutely discouraging. I need about up to 3 years to really get confident in a CAD/BIM/3D Software. There are always familiar workflow details where you wonder how bad that could be implemented in that specific Software. And that is true. It is just that none of them has it all and once used to one Software you will get your job done to 80%. In any of them. Overall, embarrassing workflow details will hurt 80% less when you are just get used to it and by muscle memory. While perfect workflows will only get 20% more satisfaction vs a bad but used workflow. The only option to really judge a Software is to only use one software and never look at anything else. I personally can't avoid that mistake and always work with and look at 2-3 Apps for each 3D/CAD/BIM/VIZ segment. That makes me getting annoyed by all of them constantly. I miss the perfect Selection, Model and Object Organization of Modo, or C4D's CAD Exchange and Take Manager in all other 3D Apps, or Bricscad's Direct Modeling, Structural Manager, BIM and AI capabilities - while hating all its Autocad behavior, ..... If someone finds a Software the exceptionally fits his needs better than all others, go for it. I haven't found it so far.

I agree. But in this case this makes sense for advanced Visibility control. I also make use of Symbol Master/Container Classes, or at least for furniture, something you often entirely want to have out of the way when modeling. And just like I like to have Classes AND Layers for Visibility control, I also make use of PIO Container Objects Classes vs PIO Object Classes. E.g. to be able to either show only all Wall Objects vs all Objects made of concrete. The same applies for me for Symbols. So for me the Symbol Content in most cases uses other Classes than the Symbol container itself. And, especially for secondary Symbols that you may bring in from VW libraries, it is great that their Symbol content usually always uses the "none" Class and have Materials assigned by Object (not by Classes). As it would be a nightmare if those library objects would pollute your File/Office Class standards by constantly bringing in their own special Classes. (VW itself constantly pollutes your Class standard already enough with Classes named "sill", "glazing clear" .... if you don't watch. And not even using proper upper case naming ...)

I also always need at least two attempts.