nrkuhl
-
Posts
173 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Marionette
Store
Posts posted by nrkuhl
-
-
FWIW, I've never used the join command successfully. I remapped command-J to compose and it does exactly what I expect.
-
I'd like to be able to enter some sort of name other than Custom for custom windows, in order to have them show up properly in schedules. I.E. we often use twinned or field mulled units from some manufacturers, and the easiest way to represent these with PIOs is with the custom sash option. However, I then end up having to do some work arounds on my schedule, because I don't want it to say "custom" (because a contractor is going to see that and drop a huge price on it, causing confusion until clarified).
I think my ideal would be to have the custom sash option have a fillable field that would fill the sash record field for worksheets.
-
1
-
-
And, somewhat surprisingly, I really love the touch screen. Makes a big difference to me day to day, and every once in a while I use my wife's MBP and want to throw it out the window for not having a touch screen.
4K resolution is a little silly on a screen that small though.
-
2 minutes ago, synapse_gh said:
I'd be fine picking up a Radeon card for this purpose, it would certainly be useful for that and other applications, and I've seen enough test-cases of eGPUs working out-of-the-box with a MBP to feel comfortable.
I looked at the Razer, and I really like it, but I've also seen a ton of reports of reliability issues that have so far been enough to warn me off...
Just don't buy refurbished from them. I have one that's going on a year and a half and it's been great. The first refurbed machine they sent me was effed though. It took them a little while to get me a replacement, but that's been rock solid.
-
Before you commit to Macbook pro, I suggest you look into the issues of EGPUs working with Mac hardware.
It's still not plug and play, with the exception of a small selection of AMD graphics cards (on a good day). No Nvidia cards work without fairly major workarounds.
I know you've said you looked at most existing laptops, but my Razer 14" is very similar in size to my wife's 13" macbook, and has vastly more power. And I've used it on an airplane.
-
11 years after this thread started we still can't override classes in multiple viewports at once. Giving it another vote and bump because it's still annoying.
-
holy crap. I've literally never used that drop down to change sheet layers of an object before. I didn't even think of that. Totally works.
-
1
-
-
I couldn't find an option in the OIP to change sheet layers - I'll look again later today when I get back to that project.
-
And, actually, the interior elevation viewports don't give you the "section line instances" button. Only "navigate to interior elevation" which breaks if you copy the viewport to a new sheet.
-
does that preserve or re-establish links with interior elevation markers though (I don't think it does)? I'll experiment, but a big part of what I'm interested in is preserving links with markers for drawing coordination.
I know I can basically turn those interior elevation viewports into standard sections, but that kinda defeats the purpose...
-
No.
I'd make your new window 113.5 or something like that. Or add a letter as suffix.
I also have my office number windows as "floor.window" so 3.5 for instance. Makes it a little easier to re-number if needed.
-
It would be very helpful if there were some solution to interior elevation viewports dis-associating with their markers when copying to different sheet layers. It would be fine if the move had to be accomplished by going to the elevation marker itself and specifying a new sheet layer, as long as all viewport annotation items are retained.
As it is, if I want to change the sheet layer for an interior elevation VP, I need to create a new marker pointing to the desired sheet, and then copy all annotation layer items and any crops to the new viewport, which is irritating and time consuming.
It's pretty common that we end up needing to reorganize our elevation sheets as we move through the phases, usually as new elevations become important due to finish choices.
-
Actually I just figured it out - for some reason in the section options it was set to show objects beyond section plan in class None. So hidden line is showing both color and line type, as expected. I've never needed to use dashed hidden line, actually.
-
I have some elevations set to hidden line render, and hidden line is not properly displaying the line type (dashed) for my window hinge marker. I know it won't display line color, but I'm pretty sure in the past it would properly display linetypes.
Is this a known issue, is anyone else experiencing this?
Edited to add: I just went back and looked at another project, and my hinge markers properly display in hidden line with both line type AND line color (shade of grey), so I have no idea what's going on in my current file.
-
I don't know about specifying pixel size directly, but if you multiply your sheet layer DPI by inches you can figure out a custom sheet size that would match the screen in question.
-
Standard Naming is under Document Settings, it's sort of what you're describing but doesn't work as well as you want it to. We use it mostly for the functionality of automatically classing PIOs for us. There's a worksheet for editing your standards that I think is described in the help files.
-
You're looking for viewport class overrides if I'm understanding the questions correctly.
If you're coming from an AutoCAD background, the level of print control and viewport templating you are hoping for does not exist.
If you're using Standard Naming, there is a worksheet that you can tweak settings from, but only for classes that are controlled by your Standard Naming scheme.
Other than those two things, I haven't heard of anything like what's being described in VW.
-
1 minute ago, Tom Klaber said:
At least they finally fixed the issue where it would not even let you finish typing the number before it shouted at you.
This is not the right approach for a stair tool. Though I have not worked with them - from the videos of Cheif Architect and ArchiCad - the graphical approach seems significantly better.
Honestly, I can't tell the difference. I started with VW2012, and the usability of the stair tool doesn't seem to have changed at all in that time.
1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:I have more or less stopped using the stair tool completely. It is frankly the worst part of the VW programme.
But there's that 25% of the time when it more or less works and I get what I want in far less time than I could have modeled it.
-
I'm bumping this because I just spent 30 minutes wrestling with the stair tool trying to move risers from one leg of a stair to the other (trying to equalize the number of treads above and below a landing).
If there was some way to stop the tool from recalculating after every change, so you could make a couple of changes that would still result in a working stair, that would be a huge start. 50+% of the time, my fights with the stair tool revolve around trying to get a certain number of treads in the right places. I try to adjust one set of treads, and I get yelled at by the tool. But if it would just shut the hell up for 30s, I'd be making a second change that allows a functional stair.
-
2017 SP5.
If placing them in the design layer directly, they do show the correct elevation, but refer to my previous post for the problems related to that.
If placing them on annotations, then you have to use one of the methods you list for 2d drawings. None of which solve the issues of coordination brought up by the OP, or come even vaguely close to matching the functionality of elevation benchmarks and grid lines in other BIM programs, or link to the story information that we have already entered into the model.
-
No elevation benchmark I've ever placed in an annotation layer in VW on a live section has ever shown a proper elevation without significant manual intervention.
@Samuel DerenboimIf you're talking about placing the benchmarks in the design layer directly, they don't show up properly in views that aren't orthogonal to them and seem to lose some of their formatting controls.
-
1
-
-
Revit import does not result in particularly functional objects. Importing 2D .DWG works reasonably well. 3D objects from other programs can be finicky.
I think your best case scenario in VW is that Revit users would export their sheets to 2D dwg and send to you. PDF export could also work. We have a lot of consultants using AutoCAD, and we typically export DWGs specifically formatted for them to use as bases, and we send them a PDF of our drawings as a reference.
I'm pretty sure you will not be able to edit Revit objects and send them back and forth between the programs with any real functionality. You definitely can't in 2017, and from what I've seen in the forums, 2018 isn't a huge difference in functionality. They are fundamentally different programs, so this is not that surprising.
-
Have there been any updates on the NAS reliability front? My office needs to replace our server, and we're looking into whether we get a new server, or a NAS setup. We do (attempt) to use project sharing on our larger projects.
We are a Mac based office, so the server would probably be a Mac Mini server.
-
The design layer viewport trick is fine as a work around, but it adds another layer of updating and adjusting. It would be ideal if we could just shoot a perspective/ortho/whatever view straight to the sheet layer with the clip cube active, like we can with any other view. This wishlist item gets my vote.
Exporting 3D from Vectorworks into Rhino
in Architecture
Posted
export to rhino 3dm is an option in VW 2017, so I'd guess it's in 2018.