Marissa Farrell
-
Posts
1,474 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Marionette
Store
Posts posted by Marissa Farrell
-
-
Currently, in 2016 (all service packs, to my knowledge) if you change the preferences BEFORE inserting your bridge line object, and check the "Set Cover Weight Manually" checkbox, when you draw your bridge line object, there will be an option in the OIP to set the weight.
I did throw it back to the engineers to have that setting persist regardless of the settings when the bridge was drawn, hoping it will always be included in the OIP. But at least for now, there is evidence that it has been (partially) implemented.
-
We also had a mishap with the default setting of the Marionette forums to only show posts back to a certain time frame. We updated this (a few months ago?) to show all posts from as far back as they exist, so it may have slipped by that way.
-
Attached is a file with an explanation of how lists work with Marionette as well as a way to manipulate them to behave how you would like.
The trick here is using the "Mix2" node. It is a very powerful node that is often overlooked, but also very important for cases like these.
Please don't hesitate to ask any questions.
-
This is because of the logic Marionette uses with lists.
I'll try to provide a working example and explain the situation shortly.
-
Remember, Alan, I only have it working in a Marionette Object, I can't get it to work if I just run the script!
-
Here's a file with an example.
I'm still not fully comfortable with the process involved, so I might not be super helpful if you have questions, but I can try.
I have noticed, though, that this only appears to work if it's in a Marionette Object, it's been failing on me if I just run it as a network or wrapper. I'll be sure to look into it.
I modified the currently existing Surface from Curves node to accept an input of curves, in this example I only used one. I don't know how it would work if you did more? Again, this procedure currently is over my head.
I can TRY to answer any questions you may have.
-
I think it needs to be touched up. I don't think it was implemented correctly.
Give me a bit and I'll try to update it/produce an example for you.
-
There was this post from a while back, for one reference.
-
Hey Alan!
Thanks for bringing this up. I, too, have been encountering the problem when converting to Polygons. It appears that some shapes when converted are actually being created as MULTIPLE polygons (you can think of it as each line is now a separate object) and we don't have a "compose" node to fix this problem (something I'm working on, I promise).
I'm not sure what the circumstances are that the conversion fails, as you and I have noticed, it DOES work in some cases, but fails in many others.
You're not doing anything wrong. We just have something weird going on with the back end of all of this. I'll look into it further.
Thanks!
Marissa
-
Benson,
You express the exact sentiments I have about making videos. It's hard to find the right time and place to create demonstrations of things, as well as making sure that you can represent your work in an understandable fashion. (I also, as many others, fear hearing my own voice in playback.)
Hopefully you, I, and all others with talent/things to share can get on top of it and start sharing our demos, greatly enhancing Vectorworks' user community.
-
So here's as helpful as I can be at the moment.
I've mocked up an example using a Hemisphere and contouring to produce "shelves" throughout it. (you'll have to use your imagination on the shelling of the hemisphere
)Your output will be a little trickier, as you have a more difficult contour result. I would suggest attempting to add a vertex on each poly (after converting from your NURBS) to prevent the crossover you'll probably encounter.
If I wasn't descriptive enough here, feel free to reach out to me directly (either through a message here, or by email - which you can find in my profile)
-
You'll most likely want to leave "dir" alone, the default value will split the surface horizontally.
I'm having a hard time producing an object that will extrude, though. Usually when we use contours, we use it on an object that would produce a closed shape, in this case, it's not really doing that well since you're just doing a surface that was converted to a generic solid.
I'll keep poking it, but I feel like this workflow is probably not going to produce the results you want.
-
I don't think there's an 'out of the box' function in Vectorscript to do a projection, which is why the node you're looking for probably doesn't exist.
I don't believe you're missing anything. I'll add it to something we should look into, though!
-
Okay, I've just encountered this with a wrapper I had previously created.
What's the name of your wrapper, as well as the name of the symbol the wrapper is stored in?
Do you have any other Node/Wrapper with the same name?
I think mine is due to having both a Node and a Wrapper in the Marionette directory with the same name, but I haven't investigated entirely.
-
Another note, the file must exist in this directory from your user folder:
...\2016\Libraries\Defaults\Marionette
That is where the Marionette content will be pulled from.
-
Do you have the "Convert to Plug-in object" checkbox checked in the "Symbol Options" dialog in the file where you have the wrapper saved? That would be my first guess. If you don't check this option, the wrapper will be imported as a 2D Symbol, which won't allow you to run wires to/from the ports.
If this isn't the solution, please describe to me what exactly you're seeing so I can help you troubleshoot further.
-
Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner, it fell off of my radar.
This isn't the most efficient way to do this, but I've attached a file that demonstrates one way you can accomplish this. I don't think we have anything else set up at the time.
The record attachment/modification takes place on the script level. Notice that the script inside of the Marionette objects is stored as a symbol so that you can modify the OIP controls to produce different objects while still retaining one master script.
In this script, I've attached a record format to the handle of the PIO (using Parent PIO - note: I don't think the one that is currently shipped with VW works as well as this variation, which I stole from Robert Anderson's skylight demo) and then created/updated fields as desired.
Please let me know if this doesn't make sense, it's the only method I could think of.
-
Jim's example is very complex, and not currently how things are set up, but it's being looked into.
I'll venture to say that locating and replacing a texture is doable, but I haven't actually tried it out.
Searching folders and being prompted for shader properties is a maybe at the moment. I think I began looking into it, but didn't get as far as I wanted to... and then more projects came up.
I can definitely re-explore, textures are pretty complicated within Vectorworks, though, so I'm not sure as to how detail specific we can get.
It's on my list (again)
-
Art V,
The named objects are the slabs, which in this case allows the script to query which layer each slab exists. This was just for demonstration purposes, there's absolutely a way to avoid having to use named objects, as long as we take the correct logic into account.
As for moving the object, I'm not sure why it breaks because how the node is supposed to work is it makes a duplicate of the object you're moving, essentially "pastes" a copy to the layer you want it to be on, and deletes the original. Again, there are ways around this method that should work (and the breaking that takes place only means that if you were to rerun the network, you may end up with more objects than intended - in most cases when you rerun a network the objects get redrawn each time which leaves no duplicate).
You can absolutely create as many variants of objects as you want. It's really all about the logic with creation. For my example, I just created a rectangle at one of the corners to extrude it, but you could do anything, really.
I'm more than happy to guide you in the right direction when/if you get stuck, if you want to continue exploring this.
-
We've encountered this error a few times because of a custom plugin having a UUID collision.
Do you have any custom plugins installed?
I can't remember which one has been the problem exactly, but this post also mentions the exact issue.
https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=44155&Number=221688#Post221688
If I find the information I'm missing currently I'll post it here, otherwise maybe someone else can lead you in the right direction. I'm 99% sure this is the same issue.
-
In short, yes.
I'm attaching a simple file to hopefully demonstrate.
How this works, it takes Slab1 and Slab2 (by name) and returns which layer they reside on, it then takes the Elevation of each respective layer and uses those as the inputs for the extrude. It then moves the extrude to the layer of the slab above (in this case, Design Layer-2, where Slab2 lives)
There are many other ways to do this, I'm sure, and now that it's been brought to my attention, I want to create a better set of nodes for this operation (such as taking into account a negative thickness of slab, etc.). I'll post back here if/when I make progress on them.
This also has enlightened me to the issue where if you move an object between layers it loses its connection to the network... meaning you can find yourself with many duplicates and not even know. I'll try to look into that further since the steps I usually take to fix that didn't work.
Let me know if this helps or if you need any more guidance.
-
My main question is why would you want to name more than one field in a record the same thing? I do notice that you CAN have multiple fields with the same name if you edit your record from the resource browser, but I'm just stuck wondering what good that would do?
Secondly, if you were to use Marionette to extract the information from a record field, you would choose the name of the field, and if you have more than one with the same name, how can you be sure you're getting the right information?
I'm not sure if this points out an issue with the node, really, because I can't personally see a use case for this to be available.
Can you enlighten me as to why you want this to work? I can take a look into it, I just need a better grasp on the workflow.
-
For your case sensitivity, you should be able to use .lower() to kind of bypass it.
example:
in the "Is In" node
for x in list: if substr.lower() in x.lower(): res.append( True ) else: res.append( False ) -
Actually, nevermind. This might work.
I updated the Control Geometry node in the script symbol to include some extra lines of code.
Let me know if this works for you, because I don't see the issue appearing anymore, but I may just be missing something.
Marionette & Vectorworks Inc
in Resource Share - Marionette
Posted · Edited by MarissaF
Currently, I don't believe that we've discussed providing objects, other than those that are being shared on the forums. There is no plan in place to release any Marionette objects within the software.
I agree with Martyn, though. So far the members of this community have been great in sharing what they've learned and helping others along when they get stuck. I would also agree that describing what you want the results to be specifically will greatly improve the chances of help.
I pretty much hawk over the Marionette forums and help wherever I can. I do sit back, however, if someone else has input (because I think learning from everyone is very important, and I want everyone to have an equal chance to communicate his/her thoughts on methods of creation)