Kurt Magness

60 day moneyback guarantee from nemetschek ?

When I export a vwks 11 file with viewports & sheet layers, etc to vwks 10 it does not export any sheet layers or viewports. This is a bummer because none of my elevations, which are viewports of the 3d model, are not there as well as any sheet layer. Is there a way to get vwks to export sheet layers as design layers ?

sounds like a corrupted font to me. look at the 3" print out to see where it stopped. is there anything obvious there?

wow thanks, that was easy.

The first row in the schedules counts up the items below. Is there a way to not show this row ?

thanks guys for the info. Hardscape tool Hmmm? Is that a landmrk 11.5 tool ? I have 10.5 and no can find!

anybody out there have or know where to get a "european fan" hatch pattern for paving?

ok so there is more weirdness than I thought. walls work ok. if you create a door or window with the plug in it works sometimes, sometimes not. If you turn it into a symbol it works better. I have had to get a door that works, check it out with the stl viewer, then duplicate it and change the parameters to insure it works ok. They all look ok in vwks but when you export it to stl and check it out with the viewer some do not show up at all or they show up as triangles, half of the opening. any clues nemchk ?

The g5 is a great machine and vwks works great on them. I'd say go for 11.5 vwks for sure and the 2.3 g5 keven is getting. laptops are really not for serious cad work but they do come in handy away from the office or for client presentations. in 11.5 you can use the 10 pallet and learn the new features as you go. the biggest change (and you do not have to do this right away) is using viewports with a 3d model of your building. it is really quite easy, you just have to think about doing a 3d model right off the bat and having the program generate the elevations from the model. aves time in the long run.

Ok so I found a free stl viewer at http://www.ripplon.com/products.html it's a classic app but it works. No fixing anything but at least I can view stl files for review. And I figured out what was happening. Seems it was my fault of course. Or actually my draftsperson. All the doors & windows in the model were done using a the door plugin, cased opening option, but to create a window my dp raised the door up in the wall so that the bottom of the door was above the floor line. This rendered ok in vwks but when stl exported, They came in as a triangle, 1/2 the opening. I guess because the bottom of the door symbol was up in the wall vwks could not resolve the opening correctly. duh

KQ: thanks for the info. Unfortunately I'm on a Mac so "Magic" will not work for me. I will tell one of my RPM guys about it and maybe he can use it to fix the meshes. I guess I will google around the web to see if there is a Mac stl viewer / fixer. Yes for general 2d laser cutting the guys I use can use the dxf export. And that works OK. Some scaling problems but I just give them the actual size of the object I need. One guy prefers corel draw though. seems everybody is a little different on what they like. For the RPM 3d stuff stl seems to be the prefered file format for sure. Some guys have more software than others and the export settings seem to make a difference. Solidworks seems to popular. I have had better luck with the ASCll than binary though. One guy calls stl "many little triangles", which is what it does I guess. Converts everything to a bunch of little trianglular meshes. Seems some RPM guys know more than others on file translations. I have use 3 different RPM companies. i am modeling very complex buildings (multi story school buildings 200' x 100' x 60' ) with a small output @ 40th scale ( 6" x 4" x 2"). The most expense guy has the software to fix anything and can model using a "laser/ liquid" process. He actually likes form z for modeling. he provides great smooth output. The least expense guy uses the "inkjet type /layering " process and has problems with my stl exports. the laser process is way cleaner and more higher rez so you you see no laying. All surfaces are very smooth and no post modeling sanding is required. I guess you get what you pay for but it would be nice to see what they are getting and be able to fix them. I haven't had problems using the plug ins for door and windows, or the wall tool either. I have been using the "cased opening" option for doors and windows since it just leaves a hole in the wall which is what the machine does. You also have to be aware of the wall or part thickness at the scale of the output, since the material can get too thin. I have been using 2 to 3 ft thick walls for models that endup at say 40th scale. Hear too I have to specify what my final output size will be because the export carrys no scale info. Maybe a nemck moderator will chirp in on some hints. I am not sure if all stl exporters are equal. Keven: I am making architectural models, RPM for the buildings, laser cutting sheet styrene for flat site work, site topo using a 3d foam router.

anybody familar with exporting vwks files to rapid prototype modeling companies? when I export as .stl file my modeler sees rectangular doors & windows as triangles. Seems only 1/2 the Ds& WDws com thuoght. any suggestions? also iges and sat does not work well either. is there a cad translator program that works with vwks?

alanmac you need a jetdirect 300x print server = $50 bucks on ebay. It may need a firmware update if it's old. Check w/ hp for other jetdirect models that work with the 1220. Push and hold the test button for 5 sec to print out the config page. get the IP address from this. go to print center , add printer, ip printing, put in ip address, select 1220 where it says generic.

my 455 works just fine with osx 10.3 & 10.2 thanks to gimp print... and in 10.3 apple was nice enough to supply gimp drivers right in the os ! Just went to the printcenter and there it was ! couldn't be more simple. thanks apple for plug & play with a unsupported old wide format hp plotter which Hp doesn't even support anymore. I think apple should be congratulated on doing something that hp or microsoft for taht matter would never do. rant, rant, rant

Just a note to all the folks at Nemetschek for creating such a great program. I have been using vwks 11.5 now for about 6 months and it rocks. The viewports, sketch rendering, speed of renderworks, autocad compatablity to name only a few of the features make this version a dream to work with. Thank you all. Kurt

check also for dpi setting in same window

OK I'll shut up. see ya

Sorry to barge in on your string Mike, but it was the only one about dimensioning. The good thing is anybody at NNA monitoring these things probably looks at the strings with the most activity and you got 32 responses so far and are at the top of the wish list for awhile at least. weirdness example: (4'-1/4")+ (4'-1/4")+ (4'-1/4")+(4'-1/4")= 16"-1" but if you set the tolerance to none or a 1/2 your string will show 4'-0"+4'-0"+4'-0"+4'-0" but your overall will still be 16'-1". It don't add up. So I guess the program has to be smart enough to do some thing like 4'-0"+4'-0"+4'-0"+4'-1" to make it add up to the overall dimenion of 16' 1". But how will it know where to add the 1" ? And is this accurate or should the program even try to make these types of adjustments on it's own? Or should a alert dialog box open up saying "dimension error" ? It's just that framers love to trip up architects. You give them dimension strings with 1/32" in them and they think your crazy, too precise for the materials. You give them strings that don't add up and they think you can't add, duh. You give them 1/2" increments like they want and you got to check every overall to make sure it adds up correctly and you allways have to make a judgement call on where to add that 1" or a 1/2" to make it all add up correctly with the overall. Before CAD in the good old days, my first boss used to tell me to always dimension framing in no smaller than 3" increments. That way you will always add up to a full foot or 3", 6", or 9" of a foot (1/4 increments of a foot ?). Any critical area can be dimension separately with the added notation clear or such. But a 2 x 4 is really 1 5/8" x 3 5/8" depending on the moisture content which framers call out as 1 1/2" x 3 1/2". or was it 100 x 50mm or is it 92.075 x41.27 mm? It's a crazy world out there or at least in America it is.

Oh and mike why would a miss snap be more of a problem on a Mac and not on a wintel ?

Mike: Getting off the subject a little bit here. Yes, I know about setting the tolerance back up to a 1/16th or higher but I thought it was funny that strings don't add up at a tolerance less than that. As an Architect this seems like a workaround to me. Why is this NNA ? And yeah metric is way more logical and I would be more than happy to change to metric myself but we norte americanos are stuck with the fraction (thanks to the british ?). Tell a framer to get a 100x50 and you'd get some strange looks. Unfortunately, we are stuck w/ Bush too, The folks I hang with here in SoCal don't particularly like shooting up other peoples countries either. Although Brendan and those bloody pome boy's might be speaking Japanese if we didn't and reading the vwks manual from back to front (Just kiddin). And speaking of framers, no disrespect intended on my comments above. I was just trying to make the point that the dimensioning should be adjustable to the type of industry you work in. Architects should be able to turn down the fractions and be confident that the string will add up. That way the framers will not need to break out their inch/feet cell phones 16'-4 7/8" in the air. Nuc sci guys and Space shuttle engineers can have them way up. And to add to the weirdness of americans, machinists take it to the 1,000th of a inch. What is that, Decimal/Imperial ?? I think dimensioning should be accurate and trustworthy and adjustable to your particular industry or country which brings me back to the subject at hand.

Never trusted the dimensioning tool myself. ALWAYS checked it for accuracy maually. Thank god for Archcalc or Calculated Industries feet, inch, metric calculator( add, subtracts,divides, etc in fractions) Ok, so this seems weird to me. May be I'm crazy here. Why when your in the units dialog box, when you set the fractions to say none or 1/2" or something large ,rounding off basically, when you run a chain string, they will not necessarly add up to the overall dimension. IT DOESN'T ADD UP CORRECTLY ?! This really got me in trouble once. How can a CAD program that is super accurate to a millionth degree do something like this? Am I doing something wrong here ? There is really no need to dimension a house to anything less than a 1/2". Carpenters are not nuclear scientists here folks and we are not building the space shuttle. They have tape, a square and a hammer, and build with wood studs that vary up to a 1/2" in size. They work off a foundation that maybe out of wack by inches since concrete tends to push and pull the forms all over the place. Why should I be dimensioning to an 1/16th or a 1/32nd? Of course you guys out there lucky enough to be born into a metric world never have to deal with fractions. Lucky bastards.

alan: don't have 4d, do have artlantis. yeah if your going to 4d or artl you would never texture in renwks but, i always get antsy to see how it looks so i can't help myself and start throwing on textures. but it would be so easy ( for the user) to do all this in vwks instead of getting another program and spending the time to get proficent in it. I tried the 4d demo, looked way to complicated for my needs. I already know renwks, it's pretty easy for the average joe. lighting, texturing etc. prettty straight forward. can't justify the learning curve & $ for 4d. already went down that road with artl and strata3d in the old minicad days. clients won't pay for it. it sure would be easy to add that radiosity button to the vwks rendering menu. And hdri is supposed to be easyier too. one dome, one "light" versus spending alot of time with many multiple lightsources and image props to fake the reflections. i use vwks every day. i use artl maybe a couple of times a year. 4d seems redundent to get just for the rendering and $1,500 +/- for a couple of times a year? or how about a VWKS plug for cheetah? they say they welcome new scrypts. any codewarriors out there willing to write a vwks plug ? But why all the workarounds? Why are we suggesting to spend money on other software in a NNA techboard? Please, please NNA is it that hard ? I would rather give NNA $100, $200, or $300 for the advanced rwks module than $1,500 to maxon. seems to make sence to me but am I crazy or just lazy?

NNa has a little quicktime movie about it on the web site

oh and by the way I do not think that the renderworks engine is necessarly "old". NNA has made significant revisions to renderworks in 11 beyond a couple of tweaks. Also NNA says 11.5 renderworks is multithreaded now so it should be faster on dual processor machines. I personally can't tell the differnce on my dual g4 on a quick test. But any body attempting to do this type or work should be on a fast dual G5 anyway. It seems like there is only a core group of 5 or so people that jump in on these renderworks features strings. Maybe if we can increase the interest NNa will do something. Bitching about this doesn't seem to impress NNA to do anything about it. I suppose we can try praise. Thanks for all the great features NNA ! Or maybe if we all create alias users and bombard the tech board with good things to say about renderworks ( along with a request for the goodies) NNA might give us what we lust for.

Lightworks has all the goodies (HDRI,radiosity, etc,) in their higher end rendering package. I guess NNA figures that not that many people want it enough to justify the cost / programming time to implement it (I beg to differ). last time we went through this string with NNA they said there was some licensing issues with the Lightworks LWA textures too. Seems to me it would be relatively easy to implement since both lightworks & NNA have the "modular" software already in place and a working relationship with each other. And the superrealist users could just purchase the "advanced render package" if they wanted that capablitity. render times are significant no matter what with HDRI,radiosity, etc. But nothing compared to the time spent exporting to cinema 4d and fixing all the export weirdness and or going back to VWKS because you forgot something, let alone the time to re texture your model if you did it in renderworks or "faking HDRI" to get the look you want. I applaud NNA for implementing Sketch and artistic rendering technology, and the export to Piranesi. Now please give us the advanced Lightworks, Maxwell or cheetah module please. I for one would be first in line. And NNA if you need a beta tester count me in.