Jump to content

Chris Brough

Member
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Chris Brough

  1. We all recently received a requests to fill out a feedback survey.  The first item was to provide the top 5 areas of Vectorworks we would like to see improvement.  I was able to write out 4 of them on a bus to NYC to visit a few job sites.

     

    I'd like to provide these as public requests for other users to give input, as i believe i'm not the only one with some of these concerns.

     

    Please read, hopefully enjoy, and let me know if you have anything to add, or simply just vote for one or all of these as areas that need improvement/fixing.

     

    1: Our main frustration is slow down on a majority of our files.

    Windows machines in particular seem to have more issues with panning, zooming etc. Our three main workstations for Vectorworks consist of: 32+ gb of ram; 4+gb of dedicated video ram; intel core i7+ processors; 500+ gb SSD system drives. Far higher than recommended specifications. Side note; I would recommend that your main page for "system recommendations" include a section regarding multiple applications running alongside Vectorworks which I believe is valid for most of your customers. I believe all numbers on that page only pertain to Vectorworks running alone on said machine.

    We have found some work-arounds such as turning off layers with reference information from external files, pdf's etc. However, there are still some files that no workaround can cure.

    I have read the article from JimW regarding single threaded cpu vs multithread/gpu features/modules which really helped us understand what types of hardware are worth spending extra $$ on and which ones won’t help at all.

    It sounds like Nemetschek is on the right track with migrating bits of the software to more modern processing methods, but seems like it may be a long painful path for its users; since more complex "wow" features are being implemented each year, while the processing power to do the heavy lifting doesn't seem to be as high of a priority to support these new features.

     

    2: Unconstrained dimension tool: in 2015, 16 & 17 our team has become used to the N button for constrained and M for unconstrained dimensions. 2018 has changed the M key to toggle multiple view mode. I would ask that this be reverted back to the previous standard. It is very convenient for the M & N keys to be right next to each other and I believe key commands for dimensioning are going to be used more broadly among your user base compared to the multi view mode.

     

    3: The dashed lines which control dimension baseline offset seem to take selection priority over the grip for moving either end of the dimension to a different snap point. I have seen this primarily when zoom levels are at a lower percentage (zoomed out farther). Dimension end grips should definitely take a higher selection priority over the baseline offset as I believe these grips are used at a higher frequency, especially during the revision process.

     

    4: "Always do the selected action" choices: The reset saved settings dialog for this check box in particular can be frustrating as a "broad reset". I believe it would be highly beneficial to productivity to expand this checkbox to individually select which particular dialog is to be reset. On multiple occasions I have accidentally locked the wrong option due to the fast paced environment many of us work in. If the user knows which particular dialog is locked to the wrong setting (i.e. yes or no), one could open the "reset saved settings" dialog and undo only what is necessary. Having the "always do..." check box is great for productivity but is too easily undone by one mistaken click of the mouse.

  2. On 1/18/2016 at 4:12 PM, MarissaF said:

    Hi!

    So there are a few threads that have already been started on this topic, and it's a tricky one to answer at the moment.

    Towards the end of this first thread explains my current knowledge of stacking order within Marionette, and links to

    this thread, which contains a file with Stacking Order nodes.

    In short, to summarize without visiting the other threads:

    Stacking Order does not behave as expected when in an unwrapped network, it can vary in a number of ways. This is being looked into by myself and one of the Engineers for a solution.

    In a Marionette Object or a Wrapper, stacking order appears to behave as intended.

    The second link will bring you to a thread where Stephen has posted some stacking order nodes - "Send Nodes" (near the bottom, posted on Jan 07, 2016)

     

    The thread links go to the old forum. is there a way to easily find these threads again?

  3. Good tips @bcd.

    However, i would like to batch subtract one object (say a dowel) from multiple plywood/solid wood parts, while keeping those individual parts separate.

    Is there a way to accomplish this without repeating the subtract command for each part?

    If not i'd like to suggest this be added to the wish-list section.

  4. hello all, thank you for the replies!

    Jim: the surface of any solid object. Extrusion, subtraction, csg solid, addition, section,

    Kevin: I'd like the current solid object to remain with one surface offset/concentric/parallel to the original surface i select with by specific positive or negative dimension.

    Tim:

    1: I believe the shell solid will only leave a "shell" in the thickness specified, giving you a hollowed out solid. Either on the inside vs outside. I utilize the shell solid to get the desired result, however it takes much longer than the tool i'm asking for.

    2: good point... replace thickness with elevation. so i would like to add or subtract from the elevation of a surface. Although, elevation only implies change in one axis. The "thicken/offset/elevation whatever you may call it" command would offset the surface concentric/parallel to the original.

    BCD: thx for the tip!

  5. I WISH there was a one click way to add thickness to a surface.

    Currently the quickest way i've found is to duplicate object > shell (outside) leaving only the surface you want to thicken > then add solids back together.

    (this should also incorporate the opposite > subtracting thickness from a surface)

    Seems this should be SIMPLE ;) for the devs to automate into one tool, and would be SUPER useful.

    Anyone else have a better solution or in need of this tool?

    GET OUT THE VOTE!

  6. attached email solved it... i wasnt too worried about the sn but i guess better safe than sorry...

    essentially i had to open the file in El Capitan with no issue, delete a bunch of extra resources, then it opened fine in Yosemite.

  7. In 2016, my work machine shows a significant lag (costing at least a few minutes wait time creating and editing textures) in the texture dialog. As you can see below, my machine is nothing to sneeze at...

    I'm curious if anyone else has tested 2016 in Yosemite vs. El Cap.

    My work comp is Yosemite & Home laptop (Mac Book Pro early 2015) is El Capitan.

    Work computer lags significantly as noted above...

    Home computer has no lag compared to work...

    So a possible conclusion is that El Capitan speeds up some areas of VW2016.

    Hopefully someone else, or at least the VW team has enough testing to confirm?

  8. AHHH thank you Mark! makes sense.

    Just added the nodes you show and works perfectly :)

    Loving the new Marionette :) So many possibilities...

    I'll revisit the face frame one at some point and post my findings back here.

    Also hoping to get into complex cabinetry assemblies too. Exciting!

  9. hmmm I'll try to make this a bit more simple...

    Attached is a 5 piece (frame & panel door) used quite often in our millwork drawings. I'd like to be able to dynamically move this marionette object onto any plane (cabinet face, side, etc) at varying angles.

    It works like a charm until....

    1. The control geometry grips are stretched while not in top view or top/plan view. this results in unpredictable sizing of the marionette objects

    2. Cannot rotate off of layer plane... you can see in the screen caps i'm trying to rotate the object in 3d (off of the layer plane) and it tells me hybrid objects cannot be removed from the layer plane...

    Anyone have a logical explanation of why we have this restriction? Or method of moving/rotating this object type in 3d space?

    [edit] heres a video of the above... https://www.dropbox.com/s/ve3osmedg06ry8a/Screen%20Capture%202015-10-02%2008.18.31.mov?dl=0

  10. Is it possible to get the measurement from a 3d object in a worksheet?

    For instance I want to create a closet and want to get all the different measurements of the different parts in a worksheet.

    Would that be possible?

    And does the orientation of the geometry matters?

    I know this is an old post but this hits very close to home [work] for what i'm trying to accomplish in VW.

    I've had some limited success with creating a "cut list" from my millwork models.

    The issue i've found is that length/width/height/depth when called out in worksheets, returns the "bounding box" dimensions rather than the actual solid dimensions based on its orientation... so depending on the orientation of your working plane, it can make depth become height, etc. And especially when an object such as a plywood side is rotated to anything other than a 90 degree increment, you'll have a very large mass of a bounding box rather than say a 3/4 or 18mm thick panel...

    Hopefully someone has a quick fix to this either in a working model or via 2016 magic such as marionette.

    Thanks for listening :)

  11. So i've had some down time to dive in to marionette and i feel like i have yet to scratch the surface...

    Observations:

    - Creating object nodes; seems to force me to use separate marionette networks within the object node (not very accessible for large assemblies if i have to double click on each object to change it...

    - Using the Name node; this seems the most efficient way to make quick assemblies and unless convinced otherwise i'll continue with this method.

    I have 4 rectangles representing the outline of a frame. Each rectangle is named; ff_ls, ff_rs, ff_tr, ff_br (left stile, right stile, top rail and bottom rail). So the name node references the "ff_ls" etc. I'll mainly utilize this method to create a face frame for a kitchen cabinet. (see attached screen caps & vwx file)

    attached captures also show an issue i'm having with the working plane... using the name node seems to create the extrusion from the *current* working plane rather than locating the extrusion based on the "profile" placement.

    is there a simple way to always tie the extruded geometry to the base geometry location/orientation?

    Thanks so much for your help and enthusiasm guys!

  12. is it possible to drive a marionette with geometry not created within the marionette network?

    for instance;

    i'd have a rectangle in 2d i could manipulate with the corner grips or object shape pallet, then once the rectangle is changed, the marionette adjusts based on the change to the rectangle.

    i hope this makes sense...

    if this is easily achievable, this would open up infinite possibilities :)

    Thanks in advance!

×
×
  • Create New...