Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jan15

  1. Yes, that sounds right. He may be trying to use the data bar to set the start point. That should work. Just type the X and Y coordinates in those cells, with an Enter after each one, and VW draws a crosshairs at the start point. But you can do it in any tool, even the Select tool. I don't understand how it indicates he's not in the Line tool. That sentence continues That just tells us he's not in the data bar. The top row number keys ARE all shortcuts for tools in the standard workspace. But if he was in the data bar they wouldn't be interpreted as shortcuts, they'd be interpreted as numeric data to put in the cell.
  2. kneightx, the approach you're already using sounds perfect. As someone else said in one of these forums, "Layers for where it is, Classes for what it is." There are some things that Layers can do but Classes can't, and I believe Layers should be used for those purposes and not for anything else. Personally, I like to use as few as possible of each. I've never used more than about 15 or 20 classes. But I know most people use a lot more. The single layer approach is something to consider if you're sharing the drawing back and forth with Autocad people, since they don't have layers. When you export to DWG it'll all be on one layer.
  3. Yes, I missed that, Ion. With that in mind, it does sound like his "press tab to see the data bar" isn't actually getting him into the data cell, and that's why keypresses are still interpreted as tool shortcuts. And keypad numbers don't select tools, so that's why nothing happens with them. I don't understand your second paragraph, though. Why do you think he's not in the line tool? It sounds like the tool shortcuts are working. And the data bar should work no matter what tool he's in. Jeff, is the problem solved if you mouse-click in a data bar cell and then enter the numeric data? And what happens when you press the Tab key several times?
  4. Yes: pull down File > Workspaces > Workspace Editor > Edit a copy of the current workspace But I'd be surprised if that solves your problem. For one thing, the keypad numbers shouldn't be able to select tools. For another, even if you press a letter key while in a data bar cell, you just get that letter in the cell. You don't get the tool associated with that key. At least that's true with a normal desktop computer. There could be some mix-up caused by the way your laptop's fake keypad works. You may have to get a real keypad, which in any case will come in very handy for CAD work or anything else that involves a lot of numeric data entry. And the Enter key on a real numeric keypad acts like the Tab key, getting you into the data bar or on to the next cell. So you can enter data quickly, touch-typing on the keypad the way accountants and book-keepers do.
  5. CTB's are binary files, can't be read as text. Autocad includes a CTB editor that can open them and view the color-to-lineweight settings and the many other settings they contain for each of the 256 entity colors. Autodesk makes a free tool that puts ONLY the color-lineweight info in an Excel file. I think it only works if you have Autocad installed. Maybe your colleague will be willing to do that for you. Otherwise, your best bet might be to download a free demo of one of the Intellicads (BricsCad, Cadian, Cadopia, ProgeCad, and others) and install it and open the CTB with that.
  6. 2008 will open a file created with any release of v12, but v12 won't open a file created with 2008 (unless 2008 exports it to v12 format).
  7. Can you elaborate on this? Does everything change size by the same factor? If so, what is that factor? If not, is there any pattern, such as certain types of objects changing by a certain factor? Can you post a dwg file or a screenshot to show what you mean?
  8. I don't think there's cause for alarm. I agree with brudgers that Ottocad's tradition is a product so complicated and counterintuitive that the ordinary user can't function without a technical expert closely overseeing the work, and that a close oversight approach like that tends to be detrimental to the user who could otherwise manage alone. But even Otto has moved away from that in this decade, and it's only Otto's legacy combined with the management philosphy of US firms that keeps people working that way. Note what Flaherty said about large firms in Japan. We've been told for years that their management is more oriented toward empowering rather than subjugating the worker. That may explain why more of their large firms can see the advantages of VectorWorks. I assume he meant that he's listening to managers who take that approach, which no doubt includes Christiaan and many other UK/NZ CAD managers. And he made it clear that the impact of the change is mostly in features that facilitate large projects. Anyway, brudgers, even if the changes work against the small firm, it wouldn't make sense to go back to Ottocad. If that happens, someone else will deliver a product to fill the gap. Maybe Google will make a CAD program with a Sketchup-like interface. Or India might come out with a Tata NanoCad.
  9. This set me thinking about how we could explain design layers to an Ottocad user. I came up with this: - Imagine that you can have multiple modelspaces in one file, all viewable in the same model tab; but each modelspace can be turned on or off just as layers can. - And imagine that each modelspace has a paperspace and a single viewport that are associated with it and dedicated to it. They're automatically created when you create the modelspace, and you always see each modelspace through its associated viewport. Other modelspaces can be visible at the same time, through their own personal paperspace viewports, but each modelspace has its own unique paperspace and viewport. These associated viewports are all overlapping and in fact they all have the same boundaries, which are the drawing limits of the file. Since they have no border, you don't see them as objects. You see all of a modelspace through its automatic viewport, without changing to a layout tab. And since these associated paperspaces don't have layout tabs, there's no visible evidence of them either. - You can select the zoom scale of the automatic viewport, but it's a locked viewport otherwise. Regardless of the zoom scale of the viewport, you still see all of its associated modelspace through it. - You can work in a modelspace's automatic viewport and in its associated paperspace at the same time, without switching back and forth. You wouldn't even be aware of the viewport, unless you had geometry in other modelspaces visible at the same time but with their viewports zoomed to other scales. The different zoom factors of the other modelspaces' viewports would be the only visible clue that you're looking through viewports. - The program automatically puts all text and dimensions in the associated paperspace, but all geometry in modelspace. Even though dimensions are in paperspace, they measure the geometry in relation to modelspace, without the user having to set a scale. All text and all arrowheads are sized in relation to paperspace, and since they're in paperspace they won't change size when you change the zoom scale of the viewport. But they will move around to remain in the same positions relative to the geometry. As long as you're in the model tab, drawing/moving/copying is always done in relation to modelspace dimensions, regardless of whether the objects are in a modelspace or in its associated paperspace. The only thing that's related to paperspace is font size and dimension properties. - There's no apparent distinction between a modelspace and its associated paperspace and viewport. All geometry, text, and dimensions that are in one particular modelspace and its associated paperspace, or in any other currently editable modelspaces and their associated paperspaces, are selectable and editable as though they were all in the same space. - In addition to all that, there are normal tabbed layouts, and the tabbed layouts can have ordinary manually set viewports for viewing any part of any modelspace and its associated paperspace.
  10. But you can in fact re-size the text 1/48 and paste it on the sheet layer if you want to do it that way. The only catch is that you have to check the "Scale Text" box in the Scale Objects dialog box. It's often overlooked, both when using the Scale Objects command and when changing the scale of a design layer.
  11. The Esc key closes some dialog boxes, and it closes a text editing box, keeping whatever text you typed - same as the numeric keypad Enter key. And the Del key deletes whatever's selected.
  12. I don't use callouts, but does the Enter key on the numeric keypad exit instead of creating a new line? It works that way with text objects. You can make a key or key combination perform a mouse click operation using a macro utility such as Macro Express.
  13. The University of Georgia has a nice presentation on that.
  14. Is it a printer that's giving you that error message, or a PDF writer? I tried embedding that font in a PDF file with pdf995 and had no problem. I've never needed to change embedding permissions on any font, but there's a program called embed that's supposed to do that. You have to put the program and the font file both in a folder you can get to with DOS, then run the program from a DOS prompt window: [font:Courier New]C:>embed architxt.ttf[/font] And then of course put the altered TTF file in your fonts folder and re-start VW, saving a copy of the old version in case something goes wrong.
  15. You have to check the "Scale Text" box in the Scale Objects window. I would put the bitmap image and the rest of the title block all on a single 1:1 design layer and use it for all drawing sheets, regardless of the scale(s) of the drawings on the other design layer(s) that make up each sheet. If you want another title block for printing on a smaller sheet of paper, I would create another 1:1 design layer for that.
  16. The import window gives you choices for modelspace scaling and units. The 1:25.4 suggests you did something wrong in the Units section, since 25.4 is a conversion from inches to mm. You can set the scale of design layers to 1:1 in the Scale section. But if you set it to some other scale, the dimensions on the design layer will still be accurate. It's not like in Autocad, where people sometimes draw something smaller than it really is in order to fake scaling. In a design layer, the geometry is always full size but the text, dimensions, and print area are paper-sized according to the scale.
  17. And you can very easily create a Custom Selection script that selects all dimensions in a certain class (or in Dimensions class, to which they're automatically assigned when created), and then use that script to select all the dimensions and assign a text style to all of them at once.
  18. You can put the title block on a sheet layer. If you want to work with design layers only, you could put the title block on a design layer that's at 1:1 scale, and put the drawings on other layers at the appropriate scales. When you've got the template file the way you want it, use File > Save as Template. When you open it again later, VW will assume it's just a template and that you don't want to change the disk file unless you use Save as Template again. When you try to Save normally, it'll prompt for the new file name. The Dimension Standard that will be used when creating new dimension objects is the one that's selected in the Dimensions tab of Document Preferences (File > Preferences > Document Preferences). That same tab has an option for creating custom dimension standards and editing any new or existing custom standards (but not the built-in ones). Dimension standards are stored in the drawing file, so you might want to include any that you'll need in your template file. The same is true of hatches. Alternatively, you can import them from another drawing file using the Resource Browser. When you edit a custom dimension standard, any dimension objects that use it are automatically updated. You can view and/or change the dimension standard used by the currently selected object(s), in the Object Info palette. The objects are automatically updated to the new standard.
  19. Very nice presentation, DWorks. Using the Change Vertex mode and Circular Arc sub-mode of the Reshape tool has the same effect as using the Fillet and Trim mode of the Fillet tool, and the radius setting for either tool applies to both. I prefer using Fillet because I always keep it set at that mode, whereas I use many modes and sub-modes of the Reshape tool. In addition to the advantages you mentioned, the curve thus created keeps its radius and its tangency to the adjacent straight parts of the segment when re-shaped, and the external control point is always the point where the adjacent straight lines would intersect. It's a little frustrating at first that you can't grab the end of the arc as a vertex and put that where you want it, but these features more than make up for that.
  20. No idea why that happens, but whenever the search page gives me an attitude I use Andy Kovach's old Google search method. This is the format of the search phrase to use in Google: site:techboard.nemetschek.net (then insert keywords here without the parentheses)
  21. The problem for an Ottocad user is that its polylines aren't made the same way as VW's are, and the VW type are more complex. The VW polyline can do a lot more than Otto's, but it's harder to understand and control. Otto has a datatype called Spline, which consists only of curves, with no straight part. It's not really divided into segments, but is one continuous curving line whose shape is defined by control points on the curve and by the tangent to each end point of the whole curve. And then it has a datatype called Polyline, which is divided into segments, and each segment is either a straight line or a circular arc. The shape of each segment is defined by its two endpoints and its center point. No external control points in either case, except for the endpoints of the end tangent of a Spline. VW's Polygon is similar to Otto's Polyline except that the Polygon can only have straight line segments -- no arcs. VW's Polyline is in some ways similar to Otto's Polyline, and in some ways similar to Otto's Spline, but it also has features that are unique to VW.
  22. Bruce, draw a polyline consisting of 2 straight line segments. Then select the 3rd mode of the Fillet tool, set the radius you want, and click on the 2 segments. That adds a new curved segment to the polyline in between the 2 original segments, tangent to both and of the radius you specified. But there are no vertices at the endpoints of the arc, and the radius may change if you reshape the polyline. And if you offset it, the curved part of the new polyline is actually a series of straight line segments approximating the curve. Alternatively (and I believe this is what DWorks was talking about), you can draw the original polyline with an additional straight segment between the other two, with its endpoints at the start and end points of the curve. Then use the 3rd mode of the Reshape tool with the "Add a fillet vertex" option, specifying the radius, to create the curve. That second method will give you vertices at the ends of the curve, but if you try reshaping it you'll see they aren't really endpoints of an arc. They're endpoints of a segment that always contains an arc of the specified radius and may also include straight lines on one or both sides of the arc. And the offset problem is the same as with the first method.
  23. Even in Autocad, which has had viewports for 20 years, and which has never had layer scale or design layers, there are plenty of people who don't use viewports.
  24. I think he meant using filleted rectangles for drawing ovals and such. For some other shapes you might draw rectangles and circles and then use Add or Clip Surface. But for curving paths, you have to combine simple lines and arcs, as he said earlier. Another option is to draw a straight-only polyline and then fillet it to create the curves. That's very helpful when you need a certain radius between two straight segments rather than needing to start the curve at a particular point. It would be nice to have a new type of object, an arc-polyline that consists of lines and/or circular arcs, like that other program has. No matter how you create the current polyline the curves are more like splines, and when you offset them they're a mess.
  25. But if you draw a rectangle, a constrained linear dimension, etc etc, it aligns itself with the grid angle. And if instead of Ctrl-M you move something by dragging it and entering an X or Y coordinate in the data bar, it moves by the distance you typed along a 25 or 115 degree angle.
  • Create New...