Matt Overton

Talking to your previous CEO's on his last tour of Oz, it was suggested tying open Back up file with the crash report button would get more people to report crashes and get us back up and running on our work faster. Then he went and retired. Hoping Apple have plans here once APFS becomes more common. Use APFS block copy on write to encourage developers to write every change then use snapshot as explicit user saves. Make backup files something that just works.

I think Styles need another layer of function before they can be good enough to be called Types. To me types have project-specific numbers that tags can pick up on use to convey that information to others. Where Styles need an office naming convention to make sure everyone in the office is on the same page. Types have legends that appear on drawings where styles have well nothing helpful in this regard. Types have sub-types for minor variations where styles only have unrelated duplicates or unstyled instances.

I believe the IFC spec includes a storey grouping entity already. So to me, it would be a great extension if Vectorworks exposed it. Would help with:- - multiple buildings on the same site. - extensions. - off site building off impact assessments. - Split levels. - Mezzanines - Row houses edit: Dare I say it we could even use it to version a storey for design testing

Never mind... just realised you meant to fit the other direction.

Given it's not in 2018 that was only just released I'd suspect 12-24 months at least. I miss the old days* of 9 monthly releases with minor but valuable tweaks getting priority for the .5 release. *There I said I'm officially grumpy old man.

Is there a non-marketing change list document that details all the changes, especially the minor ones?

User workshops seem like they would be more useful here than seeding beta's.

Yes, Please and... "Create from Unstyled' could change to "Create duplicate style" for Styled Slabs. If the engineers are worried about the pop-up list changing length.

Is that element Project sharing? Not that I've had a chance to drive new version yet just working on the long-standing theory of teamwork elements never seeming to get enough coal face time to iron out bad interface conventions. That said not sure Open Beta is the answer, not sure open testers are going to take the time or the training needed to write good reports.

Could Vectorworks Log file be renamed to include the version. eg "Vectorworks 2017 Log"? That way if we are using multiple versions over a billing period it's easier to see which is which on the dock. Other improvements could be to add the reverse date of file start to end.

Would be the sort of thing that would make cloud services feel more worthwhile if we could do a small batch of files in the cloud. Or better still a joint venture with Backblaze or similar to upsell a deadfile server that keeps originals in tack but offers a snapshot of all files in the version we deem the office standard.

Not just rafters. We should be able to associate a Roof Framing Style* with a roof and have it update the full scope after roof edits. *Not sure it Roof Framing tool got styles in the latest update but this would be a good reason to add them.

Firstly , Yes please. Could be very useful for say locking a space into an existing corner of a building, then having the two internal dividing walls as a 'wall group' driven by the space object. Or just all those other times we group walls so we can move them as a cluster. Still to me this is a productivity improvement not a UI/UX one.

It would be great improvement when we have multiple objects selected with records attached if Number fields presented as a range of values for the selection and we could do math on the range. Instead of just being blank like current. I.e. I have a whole bunch of desk clusters. The client has numbered each desk for reasons that mean we should match them. I could set up one cluster with the desks numbered in the right order. Say 1 to 8 and the object info palette would show. Better still if we could edit or shift the full range then with simple math operations like plus and minus.

Why is it that text is the only think we can link to records? would be great to say link object colors and attributes to pop up lists and Booleans

Yes, you can change the source file by editing the reference in the navigation palette or organisation dialogue box. However, it changes all viewports with that target.

Any word if 2018 rectifies this oversight?

You mean the ones that popup contextually at just the right size for the information so we don't need to clutter the screen with palettes and have a pleasing presentation that is not out of place nor lost to the background? It's a seriously good mock up of how it should work.

Yes, these videos create a whole lot of disappointing with the product. Sure I understand the first release will be buggy but teasing us with a fluid, stylish and no nonsense interface that isn't part of the package is getting close to misleading. I mean how much of this screen grab is real, how much is "aspirational"?

We have a few clients who keep doing things in visio to do all sorts of things at odd scales. Then need to be convinced it doesn't work when draw to scale. To be able to send them a base plan and stock furniture and symbols would be useful. Isn't this the point of Nomad, sure improve the mark up tools and great that it ties to cloud service accounts.

I can think of more than a few uses for this. Would be great to link to other symbol data like say class or layer name as well. Still, that said 2017 data interface got a big clean up is much easier to use now without the data you need without being lost in a sea of meaningless other records. Now if the killed the data tab and moved the new compact presentation on to the main shape obj info palette it would be even better.

I figure these are going to be useful then for storey names and short names. Any problems with IFC files and the like?

On a personnal note and I'm assume this is a bias that comes from watching too much Sci-fi. I just don't like dark interface apps. I get it for video and animation where people are working in darken spaces but even that is shifting but much of VW target market works in well lit space so the value of dark UI is less valuable. Still if you go dark then go black not some washy dirty grey like the example in the OP.

Given the topic of conversation I'd humblely suggest using a little program called Vectorworks? I mean sure iOS is for toys and games but it handles that well and produces Vector PDF's that convert very well to retina ready scalable icons that IDE's like xCode can then turn in to monocrome graphics as needed. It's something all of us should have at our disposal. As for this point about cross-platform. While i understand and place value in the goal. I think it's easy to go to far and reinventing wheels already provided by the system to the point of being detrimental to the program:- a) it makes it stand out for the wrong reasons. Making parts of the apps that should blend off in to the system, jarring and attension seeking. b) diverts engineers from valuable parts of the app to re-creating system function the collective providers put 1,000s of hours into providing and tuning.

Probably 70% of the resources we create are duplicates to replace the current selection. Would very much be in favour of creating resources at the selection point.