Jump to content

Kevin Allen

Member
  • Content Count

    665
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kevin Allen


  1. I use a combination of symbols; my own and the VWX Libraries. When I write, teach or lecture, I rely on the libraries, then show my own as examples of what might be done to personalize the work. That said creating your own symbols is usually pitied the classroom or lecture hall.

     

    That said, I don't have zoom capability. Do you then have an additional parameter in the OIP? Setting the beam and field as you suggest should always give you a soft beam, as I understand how the vWX Light Objects work. I'd like to be able to control zoom, and edge of the beam.

     

    As such, I'd like to also NOT maintain a set of custom gobos that affect beam shape and edge quality.


  2. Similarly, I hope there will one day be a means for VWX Light Objects to 'know' what should be a square or rectilinear beam and what should be a round beam. There's also a difference between circular and oval, different units, different expected results. The same issue seen here is true of devices like Kino-Flo units used in film and tv.

     

    On a related note, I think all SLDs project a hard beam, with no option for focus. Some types of lights create a hard edge. Often we designers will want to soften those edges. To render, I add a custom gobo. Other types of lights have a soft edge; Fresnels, Kino-Flo, the magic panel. Spotlight should know and reflect these differences.

     

    And one more thing, not to pile on, but... Most units have some type of beam adjustment. On a Fresnel, that can be spot or wide. There are zoomable units of all kinds, There are units PARs and the like where the oval beam can be rotated. These features should be in VWX and transfer back and forth between VWX and Vision

     

    As an aside, as a set designer, I was collaborating with an LD,  friend and colleague on a project. The look was a specific gobo on the floor in specific places. The plan was to use s4 zoom units. Since VWX does not allow for zoom, and since the fixed beams were all wrong for the throw, I simply put the gobo in a PAR head. Sharp focus, perfect throw, looked just right. My friend has never forgiven me for putting a gobo in a PAR.

    • Like 1

  3. 49 minutes ago, scottmoore said:

    Wysiwyg produces beautiful volumetric renders.  However, like Vision, it does so at the expense of all the other attributes that make for great renders such as reflections, bump textures, that sort of thing.   Something that Wysiwyg does do really well is allow for quick user control of lighting instruments.  You can grab any light, focus it, color it, add a gobo right from the computer.  No focus points or any other nonsense.  You can also grab multiple fixtures, focus and fan them.  you can do all of that in a matter of minutes as opposed to the eternity it takes in VW with focus points.  Vision does some of this, but to a lesser degree. 

     

    I've argued that  Nemetshek could off better control of RenderWorks for an additional fee and the simple control capabilities of Vision for a fee.  Most, if not all designers would seriously benefit from some simple lighting control for focus, gobo, color, and shutter control without the need for a full blown visualization package.  Just try setting a shutter cut in VW.....  We would all benefit from better RenderWorks functionality for volumetrics without requiring a full-blown Cinema4D license.  

     

    I'm so NOT a fan of WYG. 

     

    That said, I would like VWX to make some things easier, or have options. I like focus points, but shuttering could be easier and somehow interactive. I'd like to be able to eyedrop and flip shutter cuts.

     

    Adding a gobo in LW ought to add the gobo in VWX and Vision...

     


  4. I am a fan of the closed eco-system, if you will. I think VWX should do all of the things. Acquiring Vision is, in my mind, a serious step in the right direction. I understand the time required for integration, but the simplicity of an interactive export is critical to team work and collaboration.

     

    Currently collaborating with an LD, I'm the SD, and the LD is working with WYG which he prefers to Vision at this point. Many extra steps involved in sharing information, and updating files. The more VWX can do, the better I can present and she info, and the less I'll have t argue other's choices.


  5. It seems that the Add Edge tool in 2018 now only adds a single edge. I'd like to also be able to get the old behavior of adding the edge all around. Is that function buried or gone? Similarly, this maybe a bug, Add Edge doesn't always seem logical. I can add diagonals, that's great, but I cannot always connect from one side of an object to the other.


  6. I'm not sure this is in the right place as it refers to the forums, NOT the program.

     

    That said, the website should have a more responsive design. I just learned that if the browser window is not wide enough, the search function disappears from view. I checked this just now. If my Safari window is generally fully open, I see the search box. If I make the window width smaller, the search data filed drops to the second line. If I narrow the window further, it goes away.

     

    Additionally, I get as much or many of the forum posts as I can as emails. I'm old school. On my system, that's not too bad. on my iPad (admittedly for now a Mini 4) reading can be tolerable. On my iPhone 7 these emails are useless. As I am often in the field, this is in now way desirable. They are unreadable. Of course, I can pinch in and scroll around, but that's a HUGE PITA. The emails should respond to the type of device being used.


  7. On 12/4/2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin McAllister said:

    The new resource Title Block Styles is somewhat annoying. It is yet another different thing to look for in the Resource Manager. Please add an option to view all styles sorted by type. When converting old title blocks Vectorworks should be placing these items into the existing Sheet Border Components folder. Dumping them into the root folder is not particularly helpful and just makes things messier than needed.

     

    I agree about the components folder, but wonder if title block styles need there own place in the RM drop down? We can have one document with many different size sheets and therefore different title blocks.


  8. I void OpenGL, so I generally wish it produced better (for me) results. I generally agree with the list above, but I also really wish for better texture visualization. I often feel that If I'm going to render in OpenGL, that's one set of textures, and if I'm going to render using Renderworks, that's another set of textures.

 

7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114

 

© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

×