Gadzooks

Looks like I'm probably not quite understanding whats to be achieved @Kori Your OP suggested the curtain wall option. I'd assumed this was to keep the structural steel seen (at least to one side). My earlier post (ok maybe some tweaking needed) essentially provided a metal surface on one side and filled the frame with insulation. which is what I understood you were after (and seemed a 'normal' application). If you wanted it the reverse, you'd change the colours to provide the steel panel 'look' one side and acoustic material covering the frame to the reverse side. The tweaking would have to come from you until you're happy with the results visually. This would obviously depend on the way you are presenting this wall in the project - not sure if its a 'major element' or just appears in the background of some views. If, on the other hand, you are after both sides being continuous panelled finish both covering the SFS (so now hidden in elevation and only seen in plan) - then we've kicked of incorrectly and you need to create the wall as a 3 component wall. 1 steel decorative panel covering the SFS (maybe 2mm thick), 2 structural element (SFS - thickness derived from the studs you are using), 3 acoustic material (thickness derived from calculation - maybe 40-50mm?). Have a play around and see where it takes you.

Hi @Kori It's a bit 'clumpy' (to adjust your choice of settings) but you can choose to use spandrel with face. Set different criteria for the panel and the face to suit your steel/acoustic set-up (you can see I've quickly set a grey for the steel and a blue for the acoustic material) and I think you'll be OK with the look you're trying to achieve. Texture is also available - I've not bothered and set it to None. Its just the 'trial and error' of setting the dims so that the panel has the correct appearance to the way it will be manufactured (getting the acoustic recess and the face of the steel looking good) that will take some time perhaps. Hope this helps - others may have a better way.

Yes - I do like this!

Sorry guys - seems this isn't the case. I think maybe the issue was fixed for OpenGL only. This was the earlier thread - for info Thanks for uploading the file BG. Yes - its has problems! BTW - Saving the file back to 2017 enables hidden line without problems. Definitely not a solution but an observation.

Nicely set-out @Boh So - I still think its worth pursueing the basics. No point in becoming expert at moon landings when you are only journeying to the end of the street (for the moment). Lets kick off with minimal info. What area of design are you in and what is a typical project for you.

Hi @Grethe Connerth - a lot of this is different terms for very similar things. I think it might help to get some specifics. Maybe outline what you want to produce and others could point you in the right direction without getting into word-blind territory.

Hi Matt - Just interested to know why you chose to use the stair tool especially when the results started to give you grief. (In despair) I think I would have just created the few steps as an in-place extruded shape, especially as you didn't need the extras - handrail etc. Or was it "I'm going to fix this if it kills me" (which is fair comment for seasoned VW users ) Good fix from others.

Are they placed correctly? Placing skylights in roofs is, after all, like fixing a car with stone tools. There was an earlier bug - thats been fixed - where the skylight penetration showed but not the frame. What VW version/updates are you running? Other than that, an example file would be good to see the problem and help you.

That's a good one @Pat Stanford I didn't consider that option. You'd just have to keep an eye on whether any recalc had resulted in an overflow of the crop shape.

Hi @Mikedk64 Choose which sheets will carry the revision as you input the revision data. In the Apply Revision Data To: section ----------------------- Oh - Looks like you found it

Hi @Cris Dopher I've not done this - but good question. I'm not aware there is - within the worksheet 'environment'. I expect the boffins would say "why would you want to" - but we know its all about creativity. However (and not knowing what you want to achieve), if it's just a look you've previously had with other software and you'd like to match, you could take the sheet.. and place it on a suitable graphic of your own choice. Matching colours will help make it part of the sheet design. Do what you want behind the sheet - I've put the Title there. Not being connected (dynamically) to the sheet will mean you'll have to tweak it after recalculation (eg. if the sheet flows too far down and past the graphic). Works reasonably well if it has a 'buffer zone' below the sheet - as above Hope that helps. I don't use worksheets a huge amount - others will have a much better way.

I agree. There's something very odd with this. BUG or WAI? Failsafe way to make the comparison (and to display the BUG/WAI) is to have (like you have shown above) a channel and a polyline derivative. If you highlight both and apply a texture they will (individually) show they have the texture in Attributes. For this 'experiment' I have modified the standard Metal (CN) HF hatch to have a grey background - otherwise at this scale there is too much white and it makes it look like the right hand (the channel) one hasn't received the hatch. Checking (individual) attributes confirms they have the texture. (but you can see that with the grey) Now highlight both again and make a local mapping of the texture. This is where it shows problems - only the polyline accepts the local mapping. Have a look at the Attributes though - it shows it has a local mapping. Something (WAI?) stops it displaying. Now right click on the channel (the one on the right remember!!) and choose as shown.. and then....... All is now 'fixed' - albeit the channel now has a 'true' hatch (not locally mapped) and is therefore happy to display it. I can't think this is correct, but it would be good to hear from the boffins if this is BUG or WAI. As a work around - you could apply the hatch to (say) any enclosing object drawn for the purpose and then locally map the hatch so it is an acceptable size. Now use that to create the 'new' texture version for structural shapes. But I agree - You shouldn't have to!!!! Hope this helps.

You'd think the Vectorworks fairy godmother would wave her wand for you. Would be nice to see a little honest appreciation of the people who used and evangelised (because we all did in those days) MiniCad over the competition in the early days. I too have that 'pedigree'. MiniCad was such a leap from ClarisCad (yes, I said it) and I wanted to share that with everybody I met that was still using drawing boards, scratchy paper and rotring pens - the development to today's offering is worlds away. Such is progress (thankfully !) Haha - I feel like Iike I should be adding "you youngsters don't know............" ( no, I'm not after a freebie! )

The option doesn't toggle. Its a straight choice. Choose the one that you do want. Vectorworks will hint the action if you hover over the choice. Its worth remembering this when getting used to the options displayed in all tools/commands/palettes etc.. HTH

Hard to say given the limited information Mike. It seems you created the flank wall in parts. The first floor smaller section with windows was drawn separately? Then the section that refuses to hatch was maybe raised from an earlier lower roof line? Certainly seems odd that it displays a similar (obviously mirrored) lower slope to the left hand roof-line. If so, did you draw it in without reference to the (then) external walls. Could be that the wall is drawn 'inside out' (depends on the direction the wall was drawn) hence the simple answer could be that although it has the same components what is being shown externally is the plain (internal) component/face. I would be checking the top/plan view for correct component position and also checking in open GL to see if it highlights the component is correctly displaying the chosen texture but maybe has lost its associated hatch (during the swops you were doing?) Come back if I'm way out. If you're able to upload the file, or a file that is cleaner but has that elevation/part of the design, it would be easier for others to find the problem.

^ I like ^ I especially like. (small glass of Port after?)

I agree. Or at least some sort of oversight of the boffins. I get AccessDeniedAccess Denied621F6DF28B71CB1CGW/4kIjR0fymyIVHDUwf7E6v0HE8mqAiRPuIX5qDdEU/g/FqCUwdQWDz5SOVKcdDiVhoVVVqNxk= I think thats a bad directory Yes, I agree - weird. And reversing that - export a '2017' file from 2018 and then open in 2017. On testing the hyperlink gives.. after clicking OK the hyperlink takes me to Vectorworks.Net home page On return to the drawing, the hyperlink has now disappeared. Restoring the file by 'Revert To Saved' and then opening the link to see what's there gives.. Certainly confirms the Export to 2017 is a FAIL. Don't know why the plug-in would have changed so much, but boffins please note this error/'bug'/incompatibility. Clicking OK and the link is erased once again!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One thing I can confirm though (hooray) - if you export a pdf that has the recalcitrant hyperlink on the page, then click open the link via that pdf - IT WORKS!! Maybe some of that will help? _____________________________________ Update - On closing the 2017 file, VW2017 was left 'hanging' without any menus and I had to force Quit. Something upset it badly!!

The Master!!

First off - I have to declare a dislike of BIM Object. Its not the wonderful integrated system it purports to be. And I could go on, but.... I just took a mad thought that it may have changed and went shopping for a chair. Saw it, liked it and went to download the Revit file offered (there were others, but not VW). VW splash panel says I can't download that file type and kicks me out. I'm sure I could download Revit from BIMO before? Is this new - and why, if VW can open Revit surely the VW boffins should complete the integration so proudly fanfared? --------------------------------------------------------------- And don't get me going on the obvious fact that there are so few VW files - Industry Standard I'm afraid - we should be used to it. Why doesn't BIM Object (it is a VW Partner after all) ask those who submit products to provide VW files (as well)?

I didn't have this.......but now I do. I'm not sure if this is the case Jim. Or at least not the whole case. FYI, I've been having problems with VW cloud services (beach ball over the cloud icon in the menu bar), so I restarted it. It advised an update (some reason for beach ball??) and so I've now updated and all is well (with cloud services). VW now has the debug menu. I can confirm this is due to the cloud services update/procedure, as the plug-ins folder shows 'last updated' being today and now has DebugModule.vwlibrary package listed. Maybe this is helpful for the boffins.

This is the second time my message centre has told me I have wonderful news waiting.... Lets see...... But....(as before) Derrr....So how difficult is this? Last time this was fixed without fanfare (embarrassed?) Third strike?

Sorry, may have misled you by the looks of it. Sounds like @JimW has the reason. Stick with his advice it's more reliable! Hope you get it sorted.

Confusing........Your signature says 2015.

(Not withstanding @markdd's excellent advice - as it was folders you asked about) If items are specific to Brand, you could create VW templates for each Brand with a saved 'palette' of the colours and hatches on the opening blank page (well, off to one corner?) ready to be be conveniently picked with the Eyedropper Tool. This way you can always find client specific stuff in one place rather than a series of different folders. I've done this with client's logo's and other branding. I also keep things like the 'special corporate chair' they use in all of their offices as a 3D symbol ready for use. Although - once you've created a design for your client, you've got basically all you need on that file for copying next time they come back to you. If all the client info is on a Layer called (say) CLIENT INFO it's available to you even if you want to duplicate/new name the older file and start afresh by deleting the older job design layers. In the end - whatever works best for you. Thats the flexibility of VW.

Not sure if Student works differently - doubt it - but Service Pack updates require the original software to be 'on board' before it will load. It says this on the screen splash as it does its thing. (to be clear). I assume you mean the SP2 installer. You said you'd already deleted 2018. You should download and install 2018 and then load SP2 and any further updates (we're on SP3 now) incrementally. Hope this works out for you.