Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


132 Spectacular

1 Follower

Personal Information

  • Location
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

2,649 profile views
  1. Yes it was affordable - something now lost? Coming from ClarisCad (yes I go back that far) promising something not quite provided, MiniCad was a huge leap that put me ahead of many of the architectural practices I freelanced for. I was able to promote, introduce and sell systems to much larger companies still stuck with tracing paper, rotring pens (together with razor blades to correct/change the design) and to ‘print’ via light sensitive paper passed through an A0 sized ‘mangle’ and then to an ammonia based developer. No worries about health and safety then guys. Not to mention the introduction of a new and must have tool - ‘symbols’ - turns out to be a freebie plastic product stencil provided by your local sanitaryware representative and the like. Oh, and the ability to move from hand written legends to ‘letraset’ - wow that was the biz! - they even had people, trees and vehicles to place (to scale!) wherever you wanted. I don’t remember minicad having glitches. (Just me?) Bells don’t ring true when found to have a crack and whistles don’t give the (advertised) sound when the pea is missing. Yes, whistles don’t always have peas - please allow me the metaphor. And then to find that the new bell now stops your old whistle working…..What a rabbit hole. We are not on VW radar. Commercially we are invisible at the price they determine. Could be time for VW ‘lite’? Where once expensive bells and whistles become (once actually proved to work reliably) are later made available to an enthusiastic group of professional users who don’t need up to the minute file compatibility with the mainstream (market leading unfortunately) cad and presentation packages. I’m very happy to have been on part of the journey with minicad/vectorworks, but the ownership landscape is changing - 2018 serves me well and it’s time to get my coat…. ps . Ahh… those were the days.
  2. Wow - going back some years there @rjtiedeman. Yes, worked perfectly - RAM Doubler was a life saver at that time. Output to a dot matrix printer (not so good lol) - got the job done though.
  3. …and isn’t it really great when you realise there’s a boffin hidden away in VW basement that implemented this quite simple but so obvious additional step. I use it often - even if only to keep a variation of a hatch as I ‘might need that later’.
  4. I use duplicated stairs occasionally - would this work ok for you? Duplicated the stair (in place) and class each appropriately (maybe 'show ground' and 'show first'). Use the different graphic attributes you'd like on the two versions and show/hide as required within your ground and first floor viewports.
  5. Sorry, bit late back on this one now, but.... I'm on 2018 remember but surely it will be the same (better, some would say) for you - it works with roof faces as long as they touch correctly. Easiest way to test is build a simple roof and break it to roof faces, As one might assume... Highlighting a single surface can only be framed with rafters/purlins (plates seem to be a little sketchy - I think because constuctionally they are half lapped at the corners). Choosing 1/3 will allow a (shared) ridge. Choosing 1/2/3 will allow the framer to also create the (shared) hip timbers and plates tend to be happier. For my 2p, I favour the complete roof with no need to have separate faces and then use the framer with custom profile, but I guess you are working to produce something different? Duplication of the roof onto a temp working layer then breaking to faces could be a good working practice - create and extract ridge/hip tiles and then throw the layer away. I don't like too much detail as once the hips, valleys and ridges are looking better I feel the need to make the roof tiles better reflect their form - a rabbit hole without fees! Couldn't help but to also comment ..... The source of the phrase - 'they made a complete Chorley of that one'. (I'll get my coat) (Edit: duplicate images)
  6. Yes @AlanW tackled this back in 2016 with this method - what I thought gave sensible results not too detailed but got the job done (I like getting the job done) and without the hassle of rotation. https://youtu.be/iqh0692yaAc
  7. Follow Pat’s instructions. (Exactly)
  8. @Ramon PG There are some other areas of interest in your screenshot - are they supposed to be there? Three smaller areas I've noted seem to be lighting burst? Larger area to the right - is that a tree? Both the above look as if the road surface has some reflectance from/of other objects? There's a horizontal line as well - I've highlighted Should this be in the frame? Perhaps nothing relevant to your question, but I thought I'd mention in case.
  9. Mmmm....I thought the same, but couldn't think of any other reason. The image does show odd pixels rather than the 'zebra banding' that's more commonly a give-away for z fighting. Interested to see what the issue is.
  10. My guess would be Z fighting. Have you applied the highway markings over the grey tarmac as individual 'markers' (as opposed to a road layout graphic)? If it were a graphic the image would/should be clean. From your screenshot it seems the problematic direction arrows may be at exactly the same z as the highway surface - give them a nudge up. The centreline marking near the yellow truck is safely above the tarmac - albeit floating at tyre level. The road markings near the grey truck are also safely above the tarmac - at hub level. (Also looks like someone has had the rear doors open and stolen your goods - lol) The remaining road markings near the arrows seem slightly affected also - maybe 'as drawn' or also z is an issue? Is there a gradient change before the roundabout that means the road markings need to be adjusted to account for z differences? Hope that some of that helps.
  11. Could we discuss salary Will………🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌?
  12. Perfect observation! Aren’t there rules about showing ‘enhanced performance’ in advertising? Covered as always by some very small print "this will take you 2 hours". All this, and I still can’t get my whites as good as MIRACLE GUFFO should give me - what has my world become?😂
  13. It is possible to go 'off-piste', but (using best Star Wars voice) use the power wisely. The callout tool is robust and, being database driven, won't tolerate messing with and can bite you back. Having said that, if your need is to have one or two instances of a 'unique style' then you can do it. Create your callout to be used for this purpose Duplicate the callout and choose Ungroup Warning 'are you sure you want to ungroup high-level objects' - yes of course you do! You'll find the text box sits over a white background - ditch everything else and just work with the text box. Make your 'artistic' changes - this is now an overlay the same size as your (true) callout. Even a sensible increase in size can be used as you're going to use it as a mask. Now position it over your true callout. Wouldn't want to do a lot of these changes, as it just gets a little messy, but it may help you. Have a play and see if it works for you. Gadzooks
  14. Mmmmm....... Haven't got my best thinking cap on today. Thinking copy works (duh!!), but paste is the issue (hooray??) Would it be simply to do with copying the text (and therefore its class and layer) then trying to paste into a (document/layer/VP) where that layer/class is set not to show? I may be out of ideas now, or not understanding the issue correctly.
  • Create New...