michaelk

Has that button always been there?!?! Something new every day. Michael

Pat I knew you would come up with at least one of the other 6 ways. (I'm still trying to find an 8th way to shorten a line.) Your way works with far fewer steps. Maybe this should be on the wish list. Or maybe I'm not understanding something about lofts. I love doing lofts. I just wish there was a way to go back and edit the "history" of a loft. But editing or ungrouping a loft gives you a bunch of nurbs surfaces. Not the original nurbs and rails you started with. That's why I usually use the Loft with No Rails mode. (If that's what it's really called.) It helps me visualize the outcome before I execute the loft tool if I have a lot of cross-section objects hanging in space first. Then I usually duplicate all of them and then loft the duplicates. That way I can go back to the original nurbs to make adjustments. Am I missing something, or are lofts (like chamfers and fillets) less editable than other 3d objects because they are not solids? Michael

Whoops. Good catch. Thanks for the correction. I've been saying that incorrectly for years! Michael

Matt I made a bunch of rectangular nurbs (6" tall by whatever wide) and distributed them. If it was for real I would have put more nurb rectangles at the bottom to smooth it out. It will probably take a couple of attempts to get exactly what you're looking for. Michael PS. Does anyone else find it funny that the spell check on this website highlights "nurb" as being misspelled?

Matt I created that with a loft. I obviously didn't spend any time worrying about smoothing out the bottom of the ramp. But it would be pretty easy to finesse the curve you're looking for. I'm sure there are at least 6 other ways to do it. That just seemed like the fastest. Michael

Matt This is a really quick do-not-build-from-this-drawing stab. Is this the idea? Michael

Garrett I assume you are using 2008? Right click should get it. Make the fixture was inserted as a fixture and not as a regular symbol. Michael

I second that wish! Michael

Hmmm Rereading my post above, even I'm not sure what the question was. Let me try again: I create a symbol with an attached record format. I link the fields of the record to text in the symbol. Is it possible to change the placement of the text relative to the geometry in the symbol on an instance-by-instance basis? Say for example, that two symbols are inserted near enough to each other that the text from one covers up the text from the other. Is it possible to move just one of the text fields? (Without creating a new symbol?) This is possible with Lighting Instruments and Lighting Position Objects in Spotlight, but I can't seem to figure out how to do it with non-spotlight symbols. Thanks Michael

I've always wonder about this: Is there the equivalent to the Label Legend Manager for symbols with attached record formats other than the instrument data records in Spotlight? ie. Can I create a record format, attach it to a symbol, attach text to the record fields, and then edit the field value placement for each instance of the symbol? Thanks in advance, Michael

Scott Create a texture. Color>Plain Color>pick the color. Reflectivity>Constant Assign the texture to the object. The object will "glow" the correct color even if no lights hit it. HTH Michael

Craig I'll attach the same thing in v12. Michael

Now that I've gone and posted them, I should say a little bit about how I use them... When I submit a drawing to a shop, I never intend for the casters to be real-world accurate. I put them in the drawing for 2 reasons: 1) so VectorWorks can count them. I can get an idea of what the shop's bid might be if I can count things like casters. 2) so the shop will see them and know where I suggest casters might go. With most of the shops I work with, there is some discussion later on about exact placement of the casters, and then the guy holding the welder just puts them where he wants to anyway. I DON'T use them to calculate the height of a rolling platform or road case. I just indicate what I would like the overall height to be and the shop deals with the difference between the caster height and the platform height. I'm not a caster expert. But it seems to me that the sizes of the plates and the placement of the holes are not standard across manufacturers. So the only caster you can accurately draw is one you already own..... Ok. That's way more discussion than I ever thought I would have about casters. Michael

Ray Great idea. I just posted it in the Resource Share - Symbols list. A little spooky being the first one to actually post a symbol there. Hope it helps, Pat. Michael

Someone on the Spotlight list was looking for casters. Here they are. They are reasonably accurate 3D symbols for some random caster pdf cut sheet I pulled of the web. Your actual mileage may vary. Michael

Pat Sure. Send me an email. Michael

Patrick I just make my own 3D symbols. I made one accurate 3" fixed and swivel caster with plates, and I modify those as needed to get different sizes. I've never checked to see if a 4" caster is 4/3 the dimension of a 3", but it hasn't come back to bite me yet. Michael

Great trick, Cris! MIchael

For files that are close to the size limit, I've been able to use Stuffit to zip the file. But in real life it's much easier to do an ftp or to post the file on a web site and let someone else download it. You're a mac user - you could just get a .mac account. It's worth it just for this, but there are other benefits, too. hth Michael

Drawings from version 9 still appear as version 9. So far only version 10 is affected. Michael

This is weird... A client just asked me for drawings from some old projects. I went back to open them and the files now say they are MiniCad 7 drawings! I never had MiniCad 7. Joined the VW family with version 9. I'm pretty sure the drawings were made with version 10. (Which I still have on this computer) The v12 drawings still say v12. Any ideas? Michael

Andrew I'm sure that's true. His chain hoist tool is a real time saver. And back at 'cha with VideoScreen. Great tool. I'm working on developing my own much less ambitious, but blindingly obvious tool for Spotlight users. But lack of time and rusty college Pascal skills are slowing down the process. Michael

Andrew I've never had a problem rendering light sources across layers. If I had, I would definitely be using one layer. I keep meaning to look at AutoPlot. Now you've given me more motivation to try it. Michael

Andrew Back in the day I used to do a lot of layer linking. Remember version 10? But now if I'm doing a rendering for my own edification or a screen shot to email an idea to someone I just use the Stack Layer command. If the rendering is for real, I use a viewport. I sometimes use a version of your multiple symbol trick (I really like your 2D PAR symbol) for the same reason - to get the instruments to render in the correct orientation. How do you deal with the inventory counts? I assume that you don't use the Key to Instrumentation tool. Before we leave the discussion of layers I should say this: In theatre projects I never give layers a z level. With so much stuff being flown, I want to know that the position of every object in the drawing is set relative to a 0,0,0 position. (Center Line, Plaster Line, Stage Deck) Having layers with their own zero z seems like asking for trouble. And since the performance space is almost always one open volume of space anyway, the need to use layer z levels the way they would be used in architectural projects doesn't seem to apply. Ok. There's my other $.01... Michael

Andrew I think it's a matter of personal taste. I used to share your opinion because it makes it easy to switch to other views if all or most of the drawing is in one layer. But now I enjoy having a few more layers and a lot of classes. You can't set the stacking order of classes. If I go back and add a new piece of scenery or masking I don't want it to float above the lights in plan view. And I don't want to spent time sending objects backwards and forwards. Layers allows you to control what gets drawn on top of what in plan view. The Stack Layers command makes it easy to keep all the layers in the same view. That being said, I also use a lot of classes, for pretty much the same reasons you state. I do a variation of your loci class trick. And for shows that have moving scenery, I like to put each move in a different class. -But I have scenery on it's own layer so I can control it's stacking order in the drawing. I find having symbols with elements made of multiple classes a very powerful tool. That's probably only $.01's worth... Michael