Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About mgries

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Santa Barbara, California, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

698 profile views
  1. mgries

    Wall Opening, Best Practices

    I'd like to bring this other post related to customizing wall openings into this thread. It discusses how to make openings with curved corners. Looking at both threads, it makes for a very strong argument for creating a stand-alone wall opening tool. As I mention in the other thread (link provided), there actually was such a tool posted to Vector Depot. Only problem is, it doesn't work in versions of VW beyond 2013. Can anyone please update the script for this thing to make it work in 16, 17 or 18?
  2. mgries

    Wall Opening, Best Practices

    that's an interesting idea! Let me give it a shot
  3. mgries

    Door Scheduling from Apartment Symbols

    thanks for looking into this Pat. Was hoping for something a bit more efficient. Unit Type driven design seems to be a bit of a blind spot in VW.
  4. mgries

    Door Scheduling from Apartment Symbols

    OK...here's a gutted file with just a single floor plan design layer and a single sheet layer with the schedule. Don't be confused by the fact that the 2nd Floor Plan design layer contains all the 1st Floor Residential Unit Plans. It might look like this is a mistake but it's meant to be this way. These are town houses that start on top a podium. Thanks for the help! Matt Hey thanks! will do. I ran out of time today unforturnately...I'll send tomorrow. Issue_scheduling_doors_inside_a_Symbol_mgries.vwx
  5. mgries

    Door Scheduling from Apartment Symbols

    Hey thanks! will do. I ran out of time today unforturnately...I'll send tomorrow.
  6. mgries

    Door Scheduling from Apartment Symbols

    @PatStanfordand @Alan Woodwell, I'm having a related problem maybe you can help me with. For Unit based design, we are also using symbols. Our Residential Unit symbols only encompass interior walls. All the exterior and shell design lives independently on the DL. Our solution to the whole Unit scheduling issue is to use door types, not individual door I.D.'s. Door Types work well for tracking the interior residential doors on multi-family projects. This way, there's no issue having the same Door I.D. displaying across multiple Units. No issues there. I am having a frustrating technical issue however. If I want to look at which specific door types occur per a particular Unit type, I should be able to isolate the search based on the Unit symbol. This isn't working however. Whenever I add a symbol name to the search criteria, I get 0 doors, no matter what. Check out the screen shots. Any idea what's going on here? Thanks, Matt
  7. Hello Marionette aficionados... I would absolutely love a tool for drafting all Site related surfaces/areas including Existing, Demolition and New conditions. Basically it would take a polygon and turn it into something similar to a space object, but with a lot fewer functions. full disclosure: I do not know marionette Preface... Site Plans seem simple, but to fully coordinate all the information that gets put on the Site Plan is pretty intense. Our building department makes us fill out very detailed worksheets. They want to know the area of everything. Getting this info correct is the sort of thing that slows you down to a crawl when you're getting ready for submittals. Description of Tool... One of the biggest benefits of this tool, would be that you could make all of your site surfaces on a single class, let's say "A-SITE-AREA", and allow a lot of graphic changes and record keeping to be bundled into the tool (similar to a space object). But it doesn't need to be nearly as complex as a space object. Space objects are a bit heavy and clunky, and I think drawing a siteplan using spaces would create an undesirable workflow. The OIP for this marionette would need to control the following parameters: "Surface Type": This list would be pretty long, and would cover all of the site classes we currently use when drafting a site plan. It needs to satisfy the basic Architectural, Landscape and Civil design elements. You would still need all these classes in the document, it's just that you wouldn't have to constantly be switching to different site classes as you drafted. Instead, the tool would allow you to link each surface category to a specific class, so that the pen and fill properties belonging to each category could still be independently controlled by separate classes. It would be like how door and window component graphics work. You can link each one to its own component class, or you could choose the object class to keep things simple. "Existing", "Demolition" or "New" ("New" would be the default): Including this function means that each surface category would potentially need 3 separate options for class assignment, one for Existing, one for Demolition, and one for New. Having this single feature hardwired into the tool would save a ton of drafting work. It would also make Site Data Tabulations a lot easier. "Pedestrian" or "Vehicular" (for hardscape surfaces): This wouldn't effect class assignments, but would be needed for Site Data worksheets. Yes, we're asked to provide this information in some jurisdictions. "Permeable" or "Impervious": This also wouldn't effect class assignments, but would be needed for Site Data worksheets. Turn Line Work On/Off: Turn Fill On/Off: Duplicate Line Work: An important feature would be the ability to push a button and get the polygon line work redrawn, removing it from the marionette object, and put onto the appropriate class associated with the surface element it represents. You would want to be able to select multiple surface objects all at once, and then run this command, putting the resultant line work into a group, so it could be easily selected and moved to a different layer. Duplicate Fill: The same goes for the fill Add Label Display Name/Title Display Area Is all of this achievable with marionette? Thanks! Matt Regarding Landmark... I know that Landmark has a Hardscape and Landscape tool that is similar to what I've outlined. If I had Landmark, I'd probably be using these tools. I recently posted to the Site Design section about this to see if I was overlooking something in my version (see link directly below). But there's nothing in Fundamentals or Architecture that does any of this for us. So now I'm turning to all you marionette aficionados... I'm hoping we can make something even better using your skills!
  8. mgries

    Link Hatch Surface to Text

    Hi Tom, Was browsing through this topic, and this caught my eye. When you say "style by record" are you referring to a viewport's "data visualization" feature, or something I don't know about which would be more directly linked to a drawing object? thanks, Matt
  9. mgries

    It's snowing

    Dom, WOW!!! I love this so much! It's definitely one of the best, oddest and geekiest things I've seen in a while. Seriously creative too! A belated Merry Christmas!... and Happy 2018!!!
  10. mgries

    Multiple Space Labels

    Pat, First of all...Happy 2018! So I tried calling this up in a worksheet, and it didn't work for me. It's a VW2016 file though. Should this black magic work on 2016? Matt
  11. mgries

    Site Planning Tools for VW Architect

    @rowbear97 Ha! In all seriousness, if I were to hire a landscape architect who is using Landmark, I would think that would be all the more reason to have some of these tools available with which to coordinate. As an Architect, it's important to get in the ballpark with these elements in order to move forward with early design drawings.
  12. I'm just realizing that my VW Architect doesn't contain some of the basic Site Planning Tools I would expect to find, even for primarily Architectural uses. Is there really no Landscape Area Tool for me to use? Does Vectorworks offer any way for Architects to designate general Site Plan areas (such as pervious and impervious surfaces) using a BIM feature? We need this too. Thanks, Matt
  13. @Tom Klaber, I see this is a bit of an old post, but I really appreciate the thought you put into this! There would need to be a bridge between finishes assigned to walls and those assigned to spaces, so the information could be linked or transferred, rather than only belonged to one or the other. Also, there's the issue of tracking rated assemblies, as you mention, so a bit more thought is needed here, but I think what you propose offers a lot of flexibility to deal with all assemblies, whether rated or not. The tagging of a rated assembly would need to belong to the combined wall assembly (structural + finish). So if you changed the finish assembly, you would cancel out the rating data. Rated assemblies, irregardless of software capabilities, is always going to be a complex issue in terms of documentation. It conflicts with documenting walls the way you show above (finish assemblies and structural assemblies kept separate). When rating isn't an issue, this method works great though! Regarding wall ratings: Another wishlist item, and I know this has been talked about on the forum already, would be a simple way to control the graphical representation of rated walls, floors, and roofs, unrelated to any assembly graphics. Has VW2018 addressed this at all? If not, we need this feature! This should be a simple check box ("show wall rating"). It's essential from schematic design through to construction documents to be able to see a (class dependent) annotative graphic attribute running down the center of (or maybe sandwiching) any rated assembly. Even before specific wall assemblies are dialed in, and well before that amount explodes to 30 different types, we still know the general TYPE of wall assembly - as far as required rating is concerned - and need to track this information and represent it in our drawings. Building this into the wall tool as an annotative component would greatly help improve the efficiency of documentation, as well as overall quality control. Matt
  14. mgries

    Layer Cut Plane - Does it actually work?

    This tool was so close to being VERY useful! But the fact it only relates to wall components is rather self defeating. We have viewports for simplified presentations where we like to turn off the wall components (i.e.- for schematic design). Partial height walls below the cut plane all of a sudden display like they're being cut (per main wall class assignment). I would expect the main wall class to follow the same override algorithm as the component wall classes. This seems like an odd oversight. I hope we don't have to wait to long for this to be fixed! CORRECTION! I must have been doing something wrong. I can now get the class display override to work when components are turned off. I'm not sure what was going on the first time around... I guess the only issue is when the wall is above the cut plane. CORRECTION TO CORRECTION...IS THIS A BUG?? This tool definitely is not working correctly. Can someone please tell me if this is a bug? Aside from unstyled walls not obeying cut plane algorithm (which seems to be per design), my styled walls are getting tripped up as well. Here's the set up: My partition walls are set to A-WALL-PRTN class, which is set to 18mil with a grey fill. When the wall goes below the cut plane, I set the display to my partial height wall class A-WALL-PRHT, which is 10mil with a white fill. I should probably just name it A-WALL-BELW so that the names aren't so similar. Anyway, I've included screenshots of these settings. Here's the glitch: When I have my wall detail components turned on, both the line and fill display correctly below cut plane. But, when I turn off wall components, the line displays per the partial height class, but the fill reverts to the full height partition wall class! What's going on here?! Please help if you can... mcg
  15. mgries

    Create Custom Arrowheads

    @JimW, I thought new marker types got written to some file hidden on my hard drive. When I add a new marker type, and then open up a new file from scratch, the new marker type is still there on the marker list, so it doesn't seems to be independent of the document that was open when it got created. What is the best way to share a custom marker list with a whole office besides going around to each machine a re-editing the list? Thanks, Matt