mgries

Member
  • Content count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About mgries

  • Rank
    Greenhorn

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Architect
  • Location
    Santa Barbara, California, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

460 profile views
  1. Related to this, I have a wall opening display question I would love answered: I have used the door tool to create vent openings in the stem wall below (vent openings to crawl space). In plan, I would like to show my wall break lines to be dashed, but I can't get this to work. I am displaying opening set to "no break", which gets me half way there. For the life of me, I can't figure out how to control the display of the perpendicular break lines. See screenshots... I hope someone can help me...this is driving me crazy!
  2. I suggest a generic "Wall Opening" tool, separate from Door or Window tool, to control all of these issues. It could contain all the necessary options for capping, without having to integrate it with the display settings for actual AEC objects. A cool feature to add on top of this would be to designate the opening for the purposes of ventilation, potentially allowing application of vent coverings to be built into the tool.
  3. Hi mk, I'm in need of this exact script! I use a space label and calculate the occupant load using the formula field, but I'm stuck displaying the result using the decimal precision set for the entire document. Please share if you can find this! Thanks, Matt
  4. A way to do this without the script is to use the Formula Field under "Additional Data". I fill this out to read "=#Gross Area#/#Additional Info 01#", then the space label can call up Occupant Load directly from the Formula field. There's a rounding issue of course. Does anyone know how I'd write this formula to take care of rounding? Thanks, Matt
  5. I'm coming in late to this thread, but.... What about "advanced" project info. related to code analysis (Occupancies, Construction Type, Exiting components, etc.)? It would be helpful to store these types of code related parameters in order to greater leverage space tabulation worksheets. Currently, we use worksheets in spreadsheet mode, and add lots of nested formulas to help with tracking code analysis. But it would be nice to tie this sort of worksheet into project info. from a database. Has anyone given thought about storing and utilizing this level of project info? The only thing I can think of to use at this point would be a custom record. But I can imagine more of a pre-formatted questionnaire type tool instead, ideally with pull-down options, and yes/no check boxes. Thanks, Matt
  6. @Andy Broomell, beautiful! This is a good work-around, but I still vote for the added feature of being able to save drawing label styles, and then being able to select style on the fly while creating a new viewport (or while simply adding a drawing label into an existing viewport). thanks!
  7. Does anyone know how to create different graphical presets for different types of drawing labels in the same file? As far as I know, you only get one drawing label default setting per file (aka: the last one used before the file was saved). But we have a few different ways of graphically representing our drawing labels. For example, our Detail drawing label is formatted to fit snug in a grid box, whereas our Plan drawing labels are longer and have a few other tweaks to the graphical display. I'm finding it a bit tedious to have to reformat my drawing labels continually throughout a project. I'm hoping there's a way to store a preset for a few basic types. Any suggestions? Thanks, Matt
  8. I have a general question regarding use of Wacom Intuos (Pro or other) Tablets: I'm interested in incorporating a tablet into my workflow, but I'm not sure how it's being leveraged with VW. Is it just used as a fancy mouse that provides pen control and touch-pad gestures (as well as handy preset shortcut buttons)? Or does VW also allow integration of the pen tool to create quick hand sketches directly on screen? In other words, are people literally drawing on their screen with this, say for example to add mark-up redlines? Thanks, Matt
  9. Tom, there's one major benefit as I see it: Multiple boundaries would allow adjacent columns in a single worksheet to allow a side-by-side comparison of related area tabulations (each related to a different boundary). For example, you would be able to show Gross and Net side-by-side in the same worksheet. The tool is supposed to be able to provide for this, but as I previously explained, the algorithm is far too simplistic to be used in practice. So now, we have to make 2 space labels, on 2 different classes. This, in turn, can only be used to create 2 separate worksheets. IMHO, tracking 1 plug-in object and 1 worksheet is far better than tracking 2 plug-in objects and 2 worksheets. Matt
  10. HA! Didn't know this was a bug. I thought there was something I didn't understand about the tool all this time regarding greyed out inset function. Yeah, please fix this...an excellent roof plugin should be high priority! @Skia_D, my workaround to this has been to set the perimeter of my roof to the inside edge of framing, rather than the outside edge. And so then the eave offset needs to be fudged to account for the thickness of wall assembly. This method falls apart when wall thicknesses vary around perimeter of building, but otherwise can be helpful. Matt
  11. @JimW I don't understand how the "Edit Issue Data" that I access via the OIP (after selecting a single Sheet Border), relates to the Issue Manager's "Issue Data". They don't really seem to communicate as I would expect. When I edit from a single sheet, I would expect to also have the option to apply these changes to all sheets as well. Instead, it only changes the issue data per sheet. Is the only way to change the issue data for all sheets at once, via the Issue Manager? Thanks Matt
  12. @P Retondo, I think you're basically asking for "annotative scaling", which Autocad Architecture made available almost a decade ago. This typically works by allowing the viewport to determine the scale of the design layer annotation, instead of having a single scale for the design layer that is only controlled through the design layer. It's unbelievable this has not been developed in VW. I think because VW offers an annotative viewport layer, they don't want to create yet another lever to tweak settings. For typical drawings, I don't find it too difficult to make use of VW viewport settings when I need to "reverse engineer" annotative scaling issues. However, automatic annotative scaling, the way AutoCad works, would really solve a lot of these detail viewport issues. If VW had this, all your details could be organized on a single design layer. It would be WAY simpler. Wishlist: Perhaps, in lieu of adding annotative scaling to the software on a global level, VW might consider creating a Detail Manager, with a dedicated Detail Design Layer used only to place details. On this layer only, annotative scaling could exist, and then you could draft 1:1 AND annotate without any hesitation. I also picture this Detail Manager helping organize library details, whether via symbols or single .vwx files. fingers crossed... Matt
  13. Another Space Tool wishlist item would be to allow multiple independent boundary objects per space. Hear me out folks... For starters, the Gross vs. Net function built into the Space Tool is virtually useless. Area definitions are way more complex than this tool would like you to believe. The building code has 3 definitions alone (Building Area, Gross Area, and Net Area). Each jurisdiction has their own versions of Gross and Net to add to this. Then there's BOMA, etc. for marketing. The bottom line is that Space Tool boundaries need to be defined in many distinct ways, and so the simple Gross/Net algorithm that the tool offers cannot reconcile all this. As a workaround, we end up making multiple spaces for each space, and put them on separate classes (A-AREA-BLDG, A-AREA-GROSS, A-AREA-NET, A-AREA-PLNG, etc.) Then at least, we can create very helpful worksheets to track all of our Area related tabulations. It's a lot of work, but it does pay off for commercial projects, where there's a lot of complex building info. to document. Having so many separate spaces to organize is a big headache of course. If the Space Tool provided multiple boundaries, each independently class-able, it would improve the workflow immensely. Matt
  14. oops... I did not mean to put this in resource sharing! Can an administrator please move this to the general discussion category? On second thought...this should go in Architecture category thanks!
  15. I figured out a neat work around to build contrasting stripes into the stair tool. I couldn't find anything on the forum on this topic. I'm wondering what the forum gurus think, and if there are any other techniques out there worth sharing. Please see accompanying screenshots. I've also included the vwx file. Method: I created a hatch to be applied to the "2D Solid" Tread graphic attribute. I made the hatch using gray colored parallel lines set 11" apart, with a lineweight that translates into 2" thick gray "stripes". I played around with the orientation until the first line of the hatch was inset from the tread edge by 2". The affect is that the edge of the 2" thick stripe ends up inset 1" from tread edge. This hatch works for 11" treads only, so it would need to be modified for different tread depths. Also, while I was at it, I wanted to bake a Stair I.D. label into the tool. I ended up using Note #2 in Stair Data for this. Not ideal. Is there a better way? Matt Stair with Contrasting Stripe.vwx