Jump to content

Hello Community!

This Thursday, October 21st, from 6 pm to 7 pm EDT, we will be performing an update on the Vectorworks Community Board. During this time, the site will be unavailable.

CETLV

Member
  • Posts

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CETLV

  1. I have noticed this, and what I have chalked it up to is sling height. Honestly how often do you actually put the hook at the exact same height as the top chord? even if you bottom choke and put the hook on the inside, your hook is still lower than the top chord. personally, I just simply connect all the trusses with the tool, so it makes an entire completed system, select one piece, and put a Z value in the change height of system to desired bottom chord height, then snap all your motors to it. who cares if the drawing shows the hooks 6" up, thats where they would be anyways most of the time.
  2. Using rigid cross section data confuses the calculation algorithms. You do not seem to have weight on this unless its hidden, and its hard to read if it is. But basically with more than one hoist and rigid cross section means that the weight is all calculated on the closest hoist point. At least this has been my experience in chatting with the vectorworks engineers in my service cases. You must also take into account the chain lengthen feature to make sure all the chains are level. if you think in the real world, the middle motor would have deflection in it, thus the middle motor would be an inch or two shorter than its outer partners. So with all these calculations fighting against each other, with a rigid cross section makes the numbers not really reliable. Certainly use paper and pencil to make the numbers verified. You also have to take into account that VWX uses a 2:1 safety factor by default I was told, so you may have to check your settings. The engineers are working so hard to try and get data uploaded for each truss manufacturers cross section data, so in my opinion, just like mr brooks... only use the truss that is in vectorworks and stop using tomcat, thomas, etc... maybe they will fess up and give them the numbers... who knows, maybe Thomas truss really is and they know it, thats why they wont release the numbers!
  3. fantastic! Thanks so much for your continuing efforts!
  4. oh yeah! I would LOVE for everyone to stop using tomcat, A because they are twice as expensive as they need to be, and B they are a@@holes... but I digress... I know that you cannot make up cross section data, and I applaud you for not hiding that fact in a product... but without the data, the product is flawed... you CANNOT rely on the numbers that braceworks spits out with wrong information. I have put the loads on load cells like I said and the true weights are far heavier. even WITH a 2:1 safety factor built in. loads do not transfer to dead hangs correctly, etc. do not get me wrong, I really do love the product, but its serious flaws have made me just simply stop using it altogether until the data is in there for more than just a simple audio hang on a single motor with no trussing whatsoever. has there been any chain cross section data uploaded at all or is all the chain still rigid?
  5. Hey sir, I will quote directly from engineers here. I reached out to our engineering team for some clarification and to see if they could explain why the calculations are showing what they are. In your calculation, all materials are stiff so there is no deflection in the system. This is because you have not selected a cross section for the hoist and there is no cross-section data for the TC12 today in Braceworks. If you place a load directly under a hoist normally all the load goes into this hoist. If this was a flexible system, some load would go into the dead hangs as well because of the chain lengthen from the hoist and the stiffness from the truss. However, there is no lengthen on a rigid frame so all the load goes into the middle hoist. If you would add a user cross-section for the truss and the right stiffness for the hoists, you would get different results Rigid is basically the worst calculation you can use. With no deflection in the system whatsoever the weight distribution is not even close. For instance in this scenario I had a 1050lb audio dead hang on a 10ft spanner truss. taking the safety factor into account the calculation had 2200 lbs on the deadhang and next to nothing on the motors. There is also a chain leveling function that needs to be worked in as well that will greatly effect your numbers. In my biggest setup recently here at LVCC I had 3300 ft of truss with a huge number of motors. I was using XSF truss (which wasnt loaded in at the time) and put load cells on key points and the numbers were consistently 30-40% heavier then were calculated. BW is nice, but in many ways you really do need to really know whats going on. The donovan thumbs are a good place to fall back to always but there are a lot of calculation safety factors built in for deflection, force, torsion force and bending force and momentum force that you HAVE to have accurate cross section data or its useless.
  6. Also keep in mind that very few popular manufacturers have actually given vectorworks the cross section data, which means even if you have a brand switch, its likely you will have to use a custom cross section anyways... and without some numbers you cannot accurately rely on the numbers BW gives you. It will be a fantastic platform when they figure out all the kinks
  7. I would create three identical sets of truss and assign a different class to each set with a version number or something.
  8. just as long as you guys realize that these custom bars that are being made are NOT accurate in the braceworks calculations. unless you have the exact cross section data you cannot reliably use anything generated from braceworks.
  9. Yeah, i know you all work really hard to make the best product you can. and you cant get blood out of a turnip.
  10. Nope, as soon as you replace the symbol (which changes the cross section from what I can see) it breaks all your connections. I ran into this many times already. I have not found an easy fix but you can just grab each piece individually and the snapping should work again. if you replaced it correctly it should have all the same coords, so all you need to do is snap that connection again. just make sure all your cross section ID's match or the connection wont happen.
  11. cool, as long as you know not to trust the numbers lol. without the proper cross section data every inch you move that motor in either direction falsely calcs the weight. until they get this cross section disaster figured out I am not using braceworks at all, I am putting pen to paper on everything. It seemed in SP2 they focused on all the annoying fixes like auto snapping loads and things, but not actually getting it to calculate correct numbers, granted they cant calculate what they dont have as far as manufacturers go, so its a pass on that front. but no bridles, no ground support, only a few european truss manufacturers in the database, missing motor speeds (which is really huge in figuring force with starts and stops) inability to put in things like ribbon grids, fixed points to attach to just things like that have made this from my view an extremely ambitious but very flawed launch. I used braceworks for a massive GS over CES this year and with 3400 ft of truss, 160 some motors, spanners, bridles etc it was a nightmare... I bet when it all gets figured out its gonna be awesome though.
  12. This was a fantastic thread. But just out of curiosity are you trying to actually calculate braceworks paperwork from this octagon? If so, you have to realize that the cross sections are not accurate and will likely give you false numbers. If you are using braceworks at all, make sure all your cross sections are not set to rigid. If they are, you are getting false numbers. Is there a hinged plate from a manufacturer that has released its cross section data? If you are not using it to calculate the loads, what does it matter if it connects or not, just get it close :-) hah.
  13. absolutely, I know its not for lack of trying! I know everyone is working hard. But I cant help but feel as though I am paying you to be a beta tester. As for the rigid structure you cannot accurately do that as the numbers are way off as I found in submitting a file to SS for clarification. Rigid cross sections just do not provide numbers that can be used. I DO however love the fact that loads are finding their structures, motors are intelligently attaching themselves and a lot of the other bugs that were so frustrating at the launch. However I feel that if you found early on that no manufacturers would give you any data perhaps rethink the launch of the product. Its a very dangerous tool for novice designers. Had I not known better and not known something was fishy with the numbers given to me with the rigid cross sections, things could have turned ugly. And no disclaimer can bring back lives.
  14. Soooo, we were told that braceworks would have some actual functionality shortly after its release. Its still pretty useless to this point. Hardly any cross sections that US designers can use, no bridles, no ground support.... is it just me or are they waiting for 19 to make us all buy it again? If This has all been corrected and its actual functional then I stand corrected, and possibly be pointed in the right direction? So far I have been very disappointed with the product.
  15. My experience with atomic has been great. I get most of the new ones as soon as they are made public. However I always have to clean them up and make the extrudes work for my workflow here at my job. They make them all in other programs, and there is always issues importing into autocad. but it can be done.
  16. I made this conversion in DWG, you can import it and it may work ok. Note: I work in 1:1 all the time to make cross platforming easier, so you may have to scale it. Its an upgrade since anything from atomic will be all wireframe with no meshes anyways. hive 3d solid.dwg
  17. Wesley, you can message me and I can provide you some very good resources on max seating arrangements.
  18. Good day, 14 seats is just fine as a starting point. However the vast majority of the codes read is that you cannot have any more than 30' to an exit row (think standing in the center of a 60' aisle, you have 30' to the choice of 2). Here in LV we have what are considered to be the strictest fire codes in the country and I have not had one single floor plan kicked back from any out of town show in almost every state following LV codes. Using this length, to maximize seating with headstrong clients you CAN do a 50+ft aisle, but you cannot exceed 30 ft to any egress path. Also, keep in mind that the width of the row path (from the back of the seat in front of you to the front of your seat) starts at 12" and opens by .3" per chair added over 14. So by using the standard 18" row path, you are basically covered for seating sections of 50+ ft never to exceed 60. if you actually do push it to 60' youll need a 20" aisle, but I recommend a 22" aisle. I can only imagine that most just do it so they never run into an issue. The thing to always keep in mind with seating of these widths is that the aisle widths usually need to go beyond 6ft to accommodate the funneling of people from each section. The simplest way to do this is to calculate all people that will be funneling into that area and do the standard .2" PP calc. Wesley this is a fine resource, however you have to know that Clark County actually governs the Fire Codes, so you should be looking at http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/building/fire-prevention/Pages/FireCode.aspx for your info. The 6ft rounds of ten indeed need to be placed on 12' centers, however you CAN nest them provided the occupancy does not exceed linear exit space. To nest tables successfully, take your tables, place a 12' diameter circle, draw a 6' radius line from the center to the edge, then draw a line straight down from the middle point of that line down until it hits the diameter line of the 12' circle, this is as close as you can nest them. (Assuming 18" chairs of course) Regardless of how you distribute the tables, you must have a minimum of 3' aisle from chair to chair. This does NOT change if the width of the table changes, you still must have 3ft. So a 5ft rd, IS permissible to have on an 11ft center, again, assuming the 18" chair. If you do not have chairs (ie high boys, cocktail tables) you still have to maintain the 3ft aisle. This rule of thumb basically applies to anything involving rounds to anything, other chairs, tables, walls, banquet setups, bars, you get the drift. Needless to say that Clark County has really buckled down on these regs since the mandalay bay shooting. Lots of egress problems there... message me if you want some more info. And don't forget to keep those fire extinguishers clear! Love this thread and I would love to hear about stories about other fire marshals, they can be rough, even when they are wrong! :-)
  19. Vectorworks peeps, I am really liking the advancements in the Braceworks functionality, however I do have one suggestion for a feature that I would like several to chime in on. I know when we put a truss and motor up, it calculates loads at the hook, but is there a feature in the works to be able to design a grid with points? Or beams with distributed loads across lbs per ft? I would like to create a layer with beams, and or hook ins in ballroom ceilings then know where I stand on a total ceiling load on the entire ceiling (I know I can just add it up, but just a suggestion) and loads on certain beams, hook ins, ribbon grids, fly rails, etc. Is there anything in the works for this in addition to the ground support and bridle functions? I do a LOT of work here in LV and end up designing far different rigging systems using the same exact set of points all the time.
  20. well, now that I think more about it, that info IS the info they would have to stand behind in a lawsuit anyways, so they should be confident in their numbers, but there is a lot to be desired for a customer using the wrong model cross section, for light duty vs heavy duty models. If they use the heavy duty numbers, and get the OK in Braceworks, then actually rig light duty and it fails, then thats what they are likely thinking. However someone who is serious enough about rigging knowledge to pay 5 grand for a license you would hope wouldnt be so negligent...
  21. Perhaps they believe that people are going to rely on the software and despite any "disclaimer" they are not going to get out the calculator and do the actual math!
  22. Well, its hard to say. I design for different manufacturers all the time depending on who the house rents from. One of the most common ones I have seen lately is XSF. Its just sort of a bummer that braceworks is essentially useless with its math unless you get very specific data. I am also curious about the chain cross sections in the hoists. rigid seems like itll work just fine, however not all chain has the same details. but i mean if a chain fails before other components, you failed math in first grade. I am indeed a SS guy, so I will keep a lookout.
  23. Has there been any updates on this? I am still searching for accurate cross section info. on a multitude of manufacturers.
  24. I have to say, SP2 really helped a lot of the bugs out. However I am curious about the hoist chain cross section only having a fibercore option set available and not typical chain used with hoists? My rigging numbers were off significantly because most of the truss symbols do not have cross sections added to them as of yet, and by default are Rigid, (which can really mess you up if you dont pay attention) Does a Rigid chain cross section do the same?
×
×
  • Create New...