Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gadzooks

  1. I reckon this can be 'fudged' depending on your requirements. @CipesDesign 's suggestion of a classing approach I think will work well - you just need to organise how the 'magic' will work in practice. For me, the way you want to use the end result determines the (VW) construction method. You could just replace the lower external area of the wall with 'in place' geometry (an extrusion with your chosen texture)... Often these feature wall bases are thicker rather than flush and this gives you the flexibility to provide this... This could work well for you if you need to section through these walls - unless you have huge lengths of wall like this? It will just take a bit of time applying the areas of additional geometry (don't even think of going the 'create wall projection' route!!). Alternatively, you could maybe take the 'cosmetic' approach. Using a wall with an extra external component, being the stone, set just to show proud of the wall above. If you're after this 'flush' finish you'll have to set the component thickness as slight as VW will allow. I experimented with less than 1mm (as you correctly say this influences the wall thickness overall.) VW will not accept zero as I thought it might (interesting, because you can 'extrude' a floor base with zero thickness in VW). However you can input (say) 0.1 - this is taken as 1mm and this is added to your wall thickness - which I believe you wanted to avoid. So try thinner - theres a 'sweet spot' where VW thinks it's so small it can't add it to your (declared) wall thickness, but renders OK. For me, this was 0.01. This was with 0.0001 Hope this helps.
  2. Strange, no-one has replied. This is the same for me still on SP4. Ive decided I can't trust updates from NNA atm. (and Ive taken to wearing a tin-foil helmet when using VW) The settings for your section viewport need changes...but I can't reason why.... See if you can reason... Set as above then update (stay with me!) Now deselect Display Planer Objects Update - and it seems fixed BUG? The other thing I found is your choice of section line appears to have the same effect. Open the file again (revert to saved) and look at the section line... If you change it to either of the other two options in the OIP your Viewport comes to life - and says alive to curser cues even when returned to your first option. BUG? Perhaps someone else can confirm (or point out I need to lay off the tin-foil helmet) Hope this helps (its been a long day)
  3. Not what you want to hear @lgoodkind, but Ive tested this again and I can't get it to not work. Surely its just that symbol? Or maybe a group of symbols that you use a lot. (Although I know you said it was a stock VW Library issue) Edit - What version(s) are you guys running?
  4. Oh - sorry thats not worked. I felt sure it was just the 'quirky at best' image function not displaying correctly and that by experimenting with the settings in cell format you would crack it. Seems its more problematic. You say its all symbols? Maybe others can offer advice if they've experienced similar problems. Happy to take a look at a sample worksheet if you think that may help.
  5. Hi @Sade are you using a student copy? This will explain the (reasonable) terms Hope this helps. If this is not the case come back.
  6. @Michael Gilbert VW has a 'Virtual Wall' as a choice in the 'Wall Styles'. Often a good way of 'sketching' out positions of walls. Replacing your chosen internal wall with virtual walls will show just the centre lines (which is as you say you want). The style of line can of course be altered by editing the Virtual Wall Type. You could even use a more informative line type of your own making. If you need to see both versions of these walls (which, no doubt you do) you could maybe class them appropriately and then choose to use the class visibilities to control what appears in different views/presentations. I assume you do not have 'Spaces'. If you do, you can vary (by choosing to make 'custom') the way the Gross and Net areas are calculated - by identifying which part of walls are used as the boundary. In your case you would choose internal line of external walls and the centreline of your internal walls. Hope that helps
  7. Yes tbh I did make that mistake first off, but it put me on the hunt for the solution I thought you'd done some time ago. Having found it I realised the difference. Listing locations for the duplicate objects may then report, in some cases, a huge list all in one cell. Difficult to control the output cell when there are multiple locations to report and therefore 'messy' I think. Pat, your option to create mini sheets for each location maybe solves nicely? Totally agree - So I still think your solution is far better, in that most design layouts have a finite number of locations - perhaps better still if there's floor by floor counts. (i.e. You're not going to populate a random 'unidentified' space with a variety of the items that need counting). So for the sheet to find objects first and then identify the space/locations (as your worksheet) seemed a better basis for an ongoing and reasonably simple solution for most situations. One additional feature might be to add a 'check calc' to flag up if items are counted but have no location found. (Stray symbol accidentally placed out of sight?) If the sheet is to be used for (say) FF&E then I'd add additional columns for each of the locations to simply calculate and flag under/over the stipulated requirements. (All design offices to have at least one extra coffee machine in LOC = ’close’ 😂) I think the kudos stays where it's deserved.
  8. @DCarpenter - This may help you.. Open the VW file from @Pat Stanford and reconfigure for your options (then go back and give Pat a huge 👍)
  9. @lgoodkind - have you set the column format correctly? Playing with the options will maybe provide a better layout for the image you are hoping to show.
  10. The Volumetric Properties tool can be useful for the odd time you need this information. You have your object.. The figures are displayed straight away - but you can choose to place these on the drawing This places a grouped text block - I generally remove the centre of mass info for simple drawings, but its been really useful for an on going design project where I need to know the the c of m position on concrete worktops where I have odd areas for hobs and designed-in underside void areas to reduce overall weight etc. For this, choose also to place locus at centre of mass For a drawing with many objects, @michaelk's suggestion is a better route I think.This would allow you to develop the information to a more comprehensive output.
  11. This is quite common with VW. Your expectation that the recessed area has now recognised it has less depth (and therefore will work with windows and doors) than wall parts either side is not carried through by the software. This is one of those areas where we users moan about the way the boffins create these features. It seems (and this happens over and over) they don't 'see the thing through'. They devised a way to create recesses and seem not to have bothered to make the feature a real 'winner'. I have a way around this for you @Jeremiah Russell. I think sometimes you need to be the Forrest Gump of design and think 'simple is as simple does' If VW doesn't play ball one way, try coming at it another way. It seems you have your window choice set, so all we have to do is sort the wall. Try it by using two wall types, main wall thickness and then a thickness to achieve the recessed areas. All you do now is attack the problem 'from the opposite direction' - use create wall projection... to create the arched area to the upper part of your recess. Then the wall will take a window (OK, not the one you've shown!) and deal with the thickness of the wall as you'd expect. Hope this helps. Edit - I think I should prove the Top/Plan view...
  12. This is worrying. Seems anything issued recently is one step forward and (fill in what you want!) steps back. I'm sticking where I am - both VW and MacOS. I can't afford to play Russian roulette with my choice of upgrades. It's my income VW is playing with. Shouldn't be like this!!!!
  13. Thanks @Polly - hope its all going good for you now.
  14. The boffins haven't got the time to address these 'reasonable' suggestions. They've been tasked year after year to put more and more 'lace around the sheet'. Trouble is, if they stepped back and looked they'd all see there's a hole in the sheet.
  15. @Polly is there a reason you've adopted this 'to-and-fro'? Your license will allow desktop and laptop to have 2017 (won't it?). I assume desktop too old? The posting subject is a little off target. Can it be changed so others will see @Jim Smith's good advice for this situation.
  16. Hi @Kevin K Have a look at @Alan Woodwell's excellent vid. https://youtu.be/iqh0692yaAc It's one of those 'why didn't I think of that' moments, that you may adopt for your models.
  17. See what I did there? (because you will crack it) I would be in the same boat. I'll have to wait until I have my geometry head on. (think I may have mislaid it! - usually getting VW to provide unknown offset dims and the like.) Best of luck
  18. Nice sheet @Chris Burton I see the problem - I don't think this can be down to (say) rounding - there must be something obvious (surely?) You've checked the originator's derivation? Although nobody on that forum seemed to have found fault. I've a had a cursory look but I can't see anything glaringly obvious. I'll have more time later. Meanwhile someone far better than me will surely step in. This would be like a 1 minute brain teaser for @Pat Stanford (if you have time Pat)
  19. Often the 'simplest' way is to Google the question and see what the (sometimes quite varied) answers thrown up are. There aren't many questions these days where you're asking it for the very first time (unless you're Stephen Hawking - RIP Stevie) So, the first answer I get is this. http://electromotiveforces.blogspot.com/2012/04/equation-for-determining-belt-size-of.html Looks ok? Also looks like you could quite easily transfer the calculation to a VW worksheet with the primary distances and pulley diameters (the 'given' figures) fed in automatically from the drawing. There are others on the web, but I didn't look further. Once you get into whether the belt is 'Vee' etc, I got 😐 You may even find someone will provide you with that worksheet! - there's some mighty benevolent guys on this forum. Hope this turns out useful for you.
  20. I'm not sure you can in this scenario B. Yes, that would enable you to 'grab' and move the three point contact area with the pulley - which is a very useful option on this tool when the geometry is consistent and just needs relocating. I don't think its as easy as that in this instance, as the geometry changes when the pulley(s) are moved in relation to each other and reshape tool doesn't have the finesse required to incorporate the reshape of a small section all in one action. My take on this.... So, the repositioned pulley has obvious and immediate changes to belt contact, and the changes also affect the 'fixed' pulleys.(I've only pointed out the lower larger one) Or have I missed something and I need more coffee this morning!! (prob need more coffee anyway 😴)
  21. Yes I remember (hate to admit it) There were some teaser files with moving gears and cranks (the files - not me). In those days the simulation was achieved by scripting - something available today and still works (as not much has changed in scripting). The scripts have ©1997, Diehl Graphsoft, Inc. Developed by Tom Urie on them. These days you'd probably be directed towards Marionette for the way to achieve this, but here's an old thread on that sort of track... Shows most stuff is possible!! Also shows theres clever guys on this forum
  22. Have you searched for the problem(s) using a suitable keyword(s) from.. This forum - most questions have been asked before!! Vectorworks 2018 Help - http://app-help.vectorworks.net/2018/eng/index.htm#t=VW2018_Guide%2FLandingPage%2FWelcome_to_Vectorworks.htm Google. Will throw up old information - some from this forum, sometimes from YouTube Direct from YouTube. There are some excellent vids from VW and from users themselves. Some are dated, but the techniques and tips are often still valuable and valid for recent VW versions. Or come back with a list - but its good to go on the search, because you'll often stumble over other (sometimes better) ways of achieving the same thing.
  23. In Finder, Cmd-J will show/hide View Options. This is under the View Menu... In viewing the options available, you can see Show Icon Preview is a choice you can make on a window by window basis. I believe this is default, so (another user?) may have switched off. Edit. Should have mentioned - I assume you are on a reasonably up to date Mac? Or were you given the oldest one in the studio?😉
  24. Thanks @David S (I was hoping @Jim Smith would be able to lend you something)
  25. You'd better change to your 2006 garb to get you in the mood... 🤣
  • Create New...