Jump to content

Gadzooks

Member
  • Posts

    497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gadzooks

  1. 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)
  2. 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
  3. Follow Pat’s instructions. (Exactly)
  4. @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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Could we discuss salary Will………🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌?
  8. 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?😂
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. Maybe the source of the text is not clear? Depending on how the VP's are set up, you are viewing information from design layers (often a mix of layers and classes with visibilities set to show). Text 'showing' could be sourced from these layers/classes (therefore fixed to the allocated design layers) or from the VP's own Annotations which have been additionally added to float over the designed elements and provide notation and perhaps graphics that aren't necessarily needed to be 'fixed' (and therefore complicate) a design layer. Check which (visible) part of the VP you are viewing and choose to add/change text by starting with the choices provided - Edit Design Layer or Edit Annotations. If I'm on the right track, hope that helps.
  12. (can't seem to edit previous post) @TomW @Tom W. Sorry guys , the subtlety of your 'handles' evaded me. You know who your are!
  13. IMO, pitched roofs is another messy implementation of a tool VW knew they had to provide to users to be regarded as a 'professional' solution. As you're finding out - its far from. Meanwhile, deep in the basement of VW HQ, the memo that had "please sort the roof tool out" was buried by a new group of memos - one labelled 'bells' and its sibling 'whistles'. @Christiaan and I have both struggled with some of the 'quirky' results using the tool can produce. His advice to break to Roof Faces is the action I'd love not to do, but I always have to, just to start to make sensible resolution of the geometry. (Christiaan - "well Mr Client, I know you said you wanted a spectacular multi pitched roof over your development, but have you considered the simplicity of a lovely flat roof? Please, please, please.....") I usually prepare a roof to look OK in straight (uncomplicated) elevations for submission to the client and Planning etc. The pitch and cover together with the resultant hips, ridges, valleys etc is enough to 'describe' the design. The detail always has to be drawn later - there's no way you're going to get a decent eaves detail from a section through a basic roof. However - many good roof companies will take your basics and return very detailed set-outs and fabrication drawings, so the option to provide 'design intent' can be preferable. @TomW (just replied as I'm am tapping away) Big up on your experiences/advice. Additionally, I would say its great to have the time (and fee) to break it down, as Christiaan says, and be able to even use the framing tool to get you part way (yes, its always part way with VW) to a detailed construction that can be peeled back (via hidden classes/layers etc) to impressive illustrations, understandable to clients. See @Jonathan Reeves7 YT's. Hope you get to feel you're more in control.
  14. This might help? Surface Engraving... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GXyERElldk
  15. Hi Alan - I'm still using some of your older tricks and solutions. Can't beat a good work around. Best regards
  16. Similar in General Discussion. See if my suggestion helps...
  17. Whoa - never seen this before. Quick look on the forum and can't see it as an issue from anyone. Everything running sweet for months. I've not added or changed anything (to my knowledge) and suddenly although registering me on startup with Renderworks included (correct), on choosing to use a Renderworks render style (system baked or my own) it kicks me out. My observations....(my signature may help) 'About Vectorworks' then shows Fundamentals, Architect (no Renderworks) Changing to view artistic renderworks settings shows the preview/change panel, but the usual sphere & cube etc. preview pieces are replaced by a solid black screen. Switching back to 2017 to see if that is ok - first asked me to 'sign in on this machine' (maybe forgotten me as I don't often go back to 2017) (Now in 2017) renderworks also crashes out if used. Same 'deregistration' as soon as attempting to use.. Open GL etc all ok - deff a Renderworks issue? I'd rather find a simple fault and repair rather than clear the software and do a complete reinstall. But , anyone have ideas? Suggestions gratefully received...........
  18. Ahh... think we're back to the 'good ol days' of printed manuals and downloadable resources from the presentation boxed CD. Memory may not serve me well so could stand corrected. Resources are still available from the VW site if you search.....not as convenient as the now adopted web resource. Found these - maybe will help? Fundamentals http://download2cf.nemetschek.net/www_misc/2011/GSG/Fundamentals/GettingStartedFundamentals2011.pdf Architect http://download2cf.nemetschek.net/www_misc/2011/GSG/Architect/GettingStartedArchitect2011.pdf Gadzooks
  19. @mattOC your signature says VW2016 - assume the file you've uploaded is 2019?
  20. Thanks Jim - appreciate your response, but I'd like to push you to the limits of 'User Experience Manager' and ask you to answer my queries fully - or alternatively get NNA to answer. I'm basically asking for this issue to be escalated. I think I know what your reply will be.
  21. ^^^^^^ Yes please. Edit/Update Just tried this with a section generated from Clip Cube and it works as it should (somebody test this please - could be I have that Friday feeling and everything is good!!) Update Sorry - must learn to read the OP thoroughly - you already said that.
  22. I'm going to be super picky on this one JIm. The original post was for a bug in 2018 - having been working in 17. To say that bug is now fixed in 19 is convenient for NNA, but it's correct to say this is still not fixed in 2018 which ought to be addressed. The issue is clearly 'ongoing' for 2018 users and I'd like this to be noted - thats all I was saying. By moving this to the dark corners of 'its all ok now' part of the forum, (This is not about you - I'm not saying this is engineered) you've moved it away from forum viewers to make their minds up about this (and similar) faults with the 18 product that should be addressed in a SP. Bit like VW saying their cars were 'faulty', but if you'd like to buy a new one they are all now 'fixed'. VW has been 'persuaded' by to make amends to their earlier original owners. I'd like to know why NNA has an alternative view on this. Is it because the various faults in 18 simply cannot be remedied by a SP - or is it going to cost too much in time and NNA would rather move on?
  23. Moved to issues resolved, but I would like it to be noted some issues aren't resolved.
×
×
  • Create New...