Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by STR

  1. STR


    Hi Angelica, all you can do with the lift/elevator tool is to 1) place and set your elevator on one floor (inserting it into a wall) 2) create an elevator style, if needed (VW2020 only) 3) copy-paste it on each floor. Besides creating an opening when inserted in a wall, there is no other smart behavior (e.g. slab modifiers, top and bottom, etc) using the the elevator tool, which is basically a 2d/3d parametric symbol.
  2. hi @Amorphous - Julian, Here to share our office experience with Project Sharing. What we’ve learned is that a lot, much more than we could believe, depends on server and network configuration and even more when it comes to save&commit which is a key operation. We have been operating for a long time in a Mac OS Server environment, since it was still a Os and not a cheap and fragile app, as it is now. In several years - especially at the beginning - we’ve pushed it as much as we could, with advanced configurations (e.g. network home folders) and professions advice on set up and management. 12 months ago, planning server hardware replacement, we decided to “downgrade” from a server configuration to a nas configurations, given that we were mostly using our server for file sharing only, having slowly moved any other “service” (mail, calendar etc) to cloud services. After quite a long research (we also came from a long frustrating time with project and file sharing issues on Mac OS server, which got worse after the new Apple file system was introduced on some clients and smb also pushed on the Apple side also), we moved to a mid-high range Synology NAS, following also testing and suggestions by VideoCom, our localized VW distributor. High range Synology NAS apparently have a better afp/smb file management. Most of our issues, which were similar to yours, have since than disappeared: no more file permission issues, no more save and commit issues, much higher stability. We still find Project Sharing not intuitive in some parts (e.g. when prompting confirmation about updating wall styles to unaware users) but working on detailed drawings in a similar configuration (small firm, max 3 people one file) is much better now. I must admit we still have the “fear” that sharing may not reliable especially under deadlines (due to some unexpected behaviors we experienced in the past, which drove us to crisis situations) but in the last 12 months, after the move, no big issue was raised working with Project Sharing. Not sure this could help you, but on our side it has been quite a positive surprise, and a big step toward an efficient management of time spent on design rather than on IT technicalities.
  3. Hello everyone, we had a similar - but less detailed - discussion/request here a few months ago. Thumbs up!
  4. Toolset images are stored in the workspace (.vww) file as ASCII: the easiest way to copy them from an old/different workspace is to copy/paste lines of text from file to file, opening the .vww file with a text editor. Backup your .vww files before editing them: it works on VW2019 and migrating icons from VW2019 to VW2020 but having a backup of the .vww files is safer. More info, and some helpful tips by @Robert Anderson here:
  5. @Wes Gardner roof and roof faces need lot of love, but i also wish slabs and walls could get some, moving toward the “structural members” approach, and therefore enhancing modeling in a 3d environment (“what you see is what you get”) rather than creating objects in a 2d/plan environment with a lot of data inputs to fill (i am often forced to sketch things on separate files/paper while modeling VW BIM just to be able to fill al the requested inputs, especially while creating roof faces) How easier would life be if operations on slabs/walls/roof components and connections could be made with 3d faces/geometry modifiers (doing that now downgrades parametric object - walls etc - to a solid loosing all the parametric capabilities)
  6. @Matt Panzer increasing consistency of similar tools (section marker / detail-callout marker / interior-elevation marker) would be a big step forward (lowering the learning curve on tools). Having similar object info & preferences visuals would also help. Section Elevation Marker & Section Line are powerful tools, but rather confusing. Menu > View > Create Section Viewport generates a Section Line (consistent) Tools > Section-Elevation Marker generates either a Section-Elevation Marker (unconstrained mode) or a Section Line (constrained mode) Either a simpler name given to the tool (Section Marker/Line) or separate tools/icons (Section Line Vs Section Marker) could make users life easier. In some european localised versions "Tools > Section Maker" and "Menu > Section Line" are different paths towards different tools, and the overall concept is easier to understand. Either avoiding the use of the word "Elevation" or using it both in menu&tools would also help. Higher consistency of the info/options provided in the Object Info and in the Preferences Dialogue would also help. Detail-Callout Marker is also a powerful tool But there is no way, if I am not mistaken, to generate a Detail Viewport from a button in the Object Info (as for Section Markers) or right-clicking. Again, a simplified naming would also help (e.g. Detail Marker Vs Detail Crop?), and arranging options&info in a consistent way in the Object Info would be very helpful The same goes for the Interior Elevation Marker and for the Reference Marker (which btw looks almost a legacy tool, maybe to be replaced by tags?) Introducing Styles for all these tools would help a lot, instead of having a weird % scaling system unrelated from Library symbols real sizes. And last but not least, thinking about consistency... in Viewport > Advanced Viewport Properties... Markers sizes is only affected by "Text Scaling" and not by "Markers Scaling" as a user would expect to be (Markers Scaling seems to affect Dimensions markers only). I find some of the latest tools introduced, among other the Data Tag and the Detail Level in Symbols, a huge step forward in terms of consistency, flexibility, and overall quality. Hope the same could happen for these tools!
  7. Here is the answer by @inikolova to a similar issue, couldn’t find it before. I post it here in case someone will run into it in the future
  8. Hello, I’ve added Google Drive integration to my Vectoworks Cloud: everything fine, but both from the web and from my nomad app I can only see folders created by me in in Drive and not folders shared with me by others, even when “Added to my drive”. Am i doing something wrong or is it related to any kind of permission/ownership I should set in a different way? Thanks in advance for any help!
  9. Thanks, unexpected list with lot of useful good news: elevator, door/window representation low/medium/high, batch rename, RAL (good one!), and hardscape for VW Architect (sooo much time spent last year trying to use slabs for paved spaces nearby our buildings).
  10. What a tool, it makes open data and cartography easily accessible to users with no deep knowledge of GIS. With a great potential in our office workflow, especially while working on feasibility studies at the architectural and masterplanning scale. Consistent and user friendly, thanks for it and congrats to the team who designed and developed it.
  11. At our office (VW Architect) we do often work either with 2-3 files (e.g. building model + schemes/diagrams + utilities such us references etc.) or with 3-5 files when working with referenced files on final design stages (e.g. landscape general model + building models + details). Something I would really appreciate/need would be the possibility to work/browse (zoom/pan/etc) with 2 different drawings/files while a command/window is open/active on one of them. For example: File 1: 3d building model > editing wall styles/components File 2: 2d details drawing > checking/verifying some information (thickness, materials etc) needed for wall components It may sound silly but right now we do often use screenshots to copy data or old style writing notes (and copying data) on paper.
  12. ciao Zeno, never managed to set that distance in the “ComputerWorks” window (“Finestra Architect” in the localized italian version). In VW2019 I would consider switching to the new “Data tag” tool, much much easier to set and highly customizable in terms of graphics (we did it at our office and, despite some minor issues, we’re happy about it). S
  13. Hi Michael, we - at our office - just moved a month ago to DS918+. We're still testing Project Sharing with DS918+ but we've also just moved to VW2019, and therefore it's too early for us to give you a proper feedback. Synology was recommended to us by our VW distributor/reseller (VideoCOM, Italy), who was kind enough to share with us some of their - or maybe VW US - internal testing results. From our experience file sharing protocol is the key for Project Sharing in a macOS environment: Vectorworks works much better with afp, while Apple has moved / is moving to smb. We still do have some file sharing issues on smb, and they also affect Project Sharing: they're not related to Vectorworks but to file sharing in general. Besides that, Synology/DSM is easy to set up, very stable, easy to maintain: we're happy about it! We do come from some kind of sophisticated server environment (network home folders, a couple of years ago) and therefore with some internal know-how, but we were able to test and set it up at the office with no issues/worries. Good luck!
  14. STR

    wonky roof

    I run into something similar a couple of weeks ago: hope this could be helpful for you as well!
  15. Thank you all for your kind suggestions: attached the issue solved with the workaround suggested by Taproot & BG (no trigonometry, geometry only). Still think that a "how-to-model" approach on the software side, rather than a "data-input" approach, could make the roof face tool as easy to use as some other VW 3d tools. roof face - different eave heights - solved.vwx
  16. thanks Taproot, I see the point, I’ll give it a try: I guess I could use geometry rather than trigonometry, although not that sure about it. Diego: nope, not that true, but thanks for your kind reply: the issue is not a geometrical issue (the roof is one plane, with 3+ vertexes all on the same plane), but it is related to the “roof face” tool: the best would be having the possibility to create a bidirectional roof pitch, e.g. generating/controlling the roof face from vertexes and/or having an option to control both angles/slopes. I understand this is not such a common issue, nevertheless it would be nice to have higher flexibility on the roof face tool and/or the possibility to generate a roof via “direct” modeling rather than inserting geometric data. I’ll try to submit it as a request, with a wider overview on the tool.
  17. At our office we're trying to shape a 2-sloped roof with different eave heights (attached image & vwx file)... with no success. The "Roof face" command is not suitable starting from a polyline/polygon with four vertexes each with a different height; as well as rotating a roof face on a plane different than the layer plane is also not allowed. Any suggestion/help? Since we're working in an advance stage of design, we're not that keen on using/switching to auto-hybrid objects: it would mean loosing all roof/slab/wall constrains (components, etc.) plus we're a kind of scared by the interaction among auto-hybrid and wall peaks. Thanks in advance for any help/suggestion. roof face - different eave heights.vwx
  18. @JimW Thanks for opening this thread, I was struggling wondering why light/shadows were off on a SLVP, being the heliodon and its class apparently on and fine. Looks like the class shown in the OIP is different than the one shown in the visualisation palette, being the latter the real one.


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.

  • Create New...