zoomer

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.

Looks like Blender has same problems with memory (leaks ?) on M3. Maybe because of Apples new M3 dynamic memory. But there are 2-3 Apple employees helping to make Blender fully Apple ARM compatible and already some service requests So Apple should be already aware of potential issues.

I was also very interested in Polycam. As it looks like it has a similar feature set as VW Nomad. I hoped for non-cloud local storage on the iPhone, not sure if it has and maybe better Mesh quality than Nomad. I even loaded Polycam on my iPhone - for a few minutes, as I read some comments of unexpected automatic subscriptions from the free App and their overall licensing model. So I have not really tried it. So @Lisa Taranto, why do you use Polycam and not just VW Nomad ? Is it much better than Nomad ? BTW, Not sure if it was Polycam but I have seen App Screenshots of simplified "Room Plan" mode showing a Stair., which Nomad refuses to scan. So if a reasonable priced App is better than Nomad, I am still interested.

Not really. Usually you will work with PIO Styles as much as possible. When you change a Wall Style, all inserted Walls will follow (*). You will want to only overwrite special Wall situations in OIP There are just two caveats : - when saving you Wall Style changes, there is an option to only change Wall Heights that were not overwritten. (One of the best VW features as it allows such special cases without the need of Style duplicates) I think it is activated by default - which is a good thing. - When you graphically edited Wall Peaks by dragging. These delta offsets will stay additional on top of Style height changes and can be quite confusing ! (use "delete Wall peaks" to get back control) I use Stories+Levels intensively. So I also use Story Levels to bind my Walls heights and Wall Components heights to Levels. So e.g. my overall Wall is set to Wall bottom base = "top of structural Slab", my, Wall top is "bottom of structural Slab -Story above". Same for my structural Wall Component(s). But my outer Insulation Package Components will use same top but bottom will be "bottom of structural Slab". (Inner finishes tops may start at "top of Finish Floor)

As Tom said. But when the unwanted lines still appear, it is usually caused by a slight inaccuracy of Wall positions, not exactly matching.

Because it was attached before the new VW Forum was released. Older Threads from the previous Forum were imported but no attachments. In the past a Web Admin was able to search and manually add the file attachments. Maybe @JuanP can or knows someone ? (or even @mike m oz can reattach ?)

voor dwg v2014 papespaces-dwg.zip voor dwg v2014-dwg.zip

I think Room Plan accuracy is pretty usable. About around what you measure with a pocket rule, concerning plaster inaccuracies, slightly rotated or slanted Walls and such. If accuracy is priority, of course you need to check consistency with your laser meter. Similar for point cloud mode. I think Room Plan is cool. Unfortunately the created Meshes are so crap that you realistically can't use them to create useful Solids, just as a snap underlay like with the Point Clouds. The main advantage of Room Plan is the small file size and its AI hierarchy and naming in USD format. It detects and sorts chairs, tables, cupboards, Walls, Floors, ..... Works great in Blender, not so much in VW with nested Groups. A problem for me is that Room Plan rigidly ignores everything I am really interested in, like Stairs, Beams, Ceilings, doesn't like parapet Walls or such things. But produces great sketches for visualizing your manual site measuring.

For me this sounds like a temporary hiccup, needing to restart the operating system and VW.

Hmmh, while we are at it ...... I also get annoyed by cluttering of my File Resource Home ... E.g. when adding library furniture or building materials. Already by my File Template I have a Resource Folder Setup according to my office standard and naming. So beside just have the option to create "universal" Folders, I would also like to have an option to checkbox from the list what is allowed to come in or not. And to get further, I would be really happy if I could setup/force VW to put all incoming E.g. "VW Textures" from Library downloads or by file imports in my office standard Folder "RENDER MATERIAL" instead. (just like with anything in VW that uses default stuff, like default Classes) Could be a simple XML file listing all VW auto defaults, with an option to add a "should be" replacement. VW reads the XML and when edited follows user's standards naming. (Just the way how localized versions of VW can use their own naming)

Well, I am iOS only here as my iPad Air 2's latest iPadOS does not allow the newest Nomad versions or use of Apple APIs. (I wonder why Nomad hints me to their new version every Nomad start anyway) So on newest iOS and Nomad, there is no difference between Room Plan or Point Cloud PTS here. Both synch to VW Cloud. (I do not have activated dropbox or other cloud synch for Nomad) I added Nomad to Finder App Access list and I even see a Nomad Folder but there is nothing in.

For me the VW cloud is also hindering in Nomad. iPhone may be even plugged in to the Mac but you need to wait for synching it up and back down to Mac. (And again if you rename or move files) I would prefer my Nomad output to go directly into iOS Finder.