Jump to content

Ryan Seybert

Member
  • Content Count

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ryan Seybert


  1. @Daniel Dickman I feel like my previous post might have led you astray. Since then I, alongside a few others, have been testing the feature ad nauseam to see if we can figure out its kinks.  Here is a list of what I have discovered with this feature, some of which will be useful to you.

     

    • Schematic views do not like "Hanging Positions".  It will react better to simple rigging objects like a "Lighting Pipe" or a "Lighting Pipe Ladder".  I believe this was touched on in an earlier post in this thread or another.
    • Not converting to a "Hanging Position" will yield a proper 2D Schematic View complete with accessories and Label Legends when "Top" is selected.
    • Converting to a "Hanging Position" will yield an almost identical 2D version of the source geometry when "Top" is selected.  When "Front" is selected, it will yield a "Hidden Line" version of the position with no accessory or label legend information attached.
    • When label legends are populated by Schematic Views, classes that are associated with a label legend do control the Schematic Views display to a point.  Allitems need to be classed appropriately.  This means that containers need to have an appropriate class assigned to them not only at the label legend level but also within the symbol.  This will be problematic if you're utilizing the same container symbol for more than one field.
    • Schematic Views do not show "Modify Lighting Instrument Color" based on color field when selected in the Spotlight Preferences.
    • Accessories will display in a schematic view, however, they're placed at the top of the Schematic View, not with the fixture they're assigned to.
    • The spotlight numbering tool does work directly on the "Lighting Device In Schematic View" objects and the input is reflected appropriately.

    I hope this helps a little more.  There is a pretty active thread on the subject matter. Here is the link:  

     

     


  2. @markdd I'm not surprised at all that you responded to this.  Ha ha.

     

    You are correct.  I'm trying to change the color of a light object by altering its class settings in a viewport which was the workflow discussed in the webinar.  I'm trying to leave actual lighting devices out of the workflow for now.


  3. Hi All,

     

    I recently watched a Vectorworks webinar that discussed some rendering workflows for the Entertainment industry.  One of them was to use a renderworks light embedded in a generic 2d/3d symbol instead of an actual Lighting device to skirt around having to create a bunch of focus points all the work load that comes with that.  I agree.  

     

    The way the presenter controlled the color of the lists was through classing overrides in the various viewports, giving them enough flexibility to quickly make different lighting looks. they did this with the lens of fixture as well, allowing for a more realistic representation of a theatrical light.  Whats was achieved by setting the texture assigned to the lens as color fill by object... which is set to class style.

     

    I'm trying to replicate this workflow and I cannot seem to get the render lights to behave correctly according to the webinar.  Is it possible to control the lights in this fashion or is this another case of VW changing something between 2019 and 2020?  The lens texture works just fine.

     

    I can see the light in the visualization palette but cannot edit its properties there as its buried inside a symbol definition.  

     

    Thanks!


  4. @TomWhiteLight Thanks.  We look forward to their advisement.

     

    I reviewed your file.  Looks like you're creating a top schematic view of each ladder rung of a position (converted to a hanging position) as opposed to the position as a whole.  I'm assuming you then recreated the whole position in an elevation view rung by rung, which works but seems time consuming when dealing with a large number of these type of positions.

     

    I posted my test file in the shared dropbox folder for you see.  Perhaps you can send that off to the Dev team as well.


  5. @markdd @TomWhiteLight 

     

    Hello all,

     

    Some really good responses in this thread.  I feel like we're really getting after it here.

     

    I noodled around with it some more last night and this afternoon and discovered some interesting results.  See attached screen capture.

    • Schematic views do not like "Hanging Positions".  It will react better to simple rigging objects like a "Lighting Pipe" or a "Lighting Pipe Ladder".  I believe this was touched on in an earlier post in this thread or another.
    • Not converting to a "Hanging Position" will yield a proper 2D Schematic View complete with accessories and Label Legends when "Top" is selected.
    • Converting to a "Hanging Position" will yield an almost identical 2D version of the source geometry when "Top" is selected.  When "Front" is selected, it will yield a "Hidden Line" version of the position with no accessory or label legend information attached.
    • When label legends are populated by Schematic Views, classes that are associated with a label legend do control the Schematic Views display to a point.  All items need to be classed appropriately.  This means that containers need to have an appropriate class assigned to them not only at the label legend level but also within the symbol.  This will be problematic if you're utilizing the same container symbol for more than one field.
    • Schematic Views do not show "Modify Lighting Instrument Color" based on color field when selected in the Spotlight Preferences.
    • Accessories will display in a schematic view, however, they're placed at the top of the Schematic View, not with the fixture they're assigned to.
    • The spotlight numbering tool does work directly on the "Lighting Device In Schematic View" objects and the input is reflected appropriately.

     

    Clearly, not converting the rigging devices to hanging positions is the way to go with schematic views, however, this does create some issues in itself.  

    • Not converting means you lose the ability for auto numbering or proper "Z" values.  Take the ladder tool for example.  The hight of the object is is controlling the center, center,center of the object, not the very bottom.  With a hanging position, its default is the bottom most bit of geometry is the base "Z" value.  Even then, you can edit the position afterwards and move the objects around until you're happy with where the "Z" base is located.
    • Another issue that I see is if you have bespoke symbols for hanging positions that are not rigging objects you have no choice but to convert them to hanging positions to make full use of the data that populates as schematic views do not populate without a rigging object or hanging position being selected.

    It's been said many times now that we (the users of the software) need some proper direction from the dev team on how this tool is to be utilized and what steps are needed to create the correct outcomes we're expecting.  At the very least, reinstating the traditional methods until the tool is at full speed.  I'm very excited to see the full potential of the tool but until it comes to fruition we're left with no recourse.

    Screen Shot 2020-02-09 at 3.36.21 PM.png

    • Like 2

  6. @the.dreamer Probably not what you're looking for but maybe this will work:

     

     - Create a custom "lighting device" symbol representing a frame in the color scroll.  Could be a simple rectangle.

     - Assign the geometry within the symbol to a class, something like "Lighting-Notes-Gel Color".

     - Navigate to Document Settings>Spotlight Preferences> classes and color.  Enable "modify lighting instrument color".  Select "color field" and "use color field for the fill color".  Next to the "modify only geometry in the class:" select the class you wish to modify... in this example it would be Lighting-Notes-Gel Color.

     - Once you save those settings you should be able to input the color field at the symbol and the fill will change to represent that color.

     - Take it a step further and add a label legend that only displays the color field.

     

    Again, might not be exactly what you're trying to accomplish but it's at least a way to graphically represent the gel string.

    Screen Shot 2020-02-08 at 1.44.11 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2020-02-08 at 1.54.40 PM.png

    • Like 2

  7. @Daniel Dickman Schematic views are huge work in progress.  Currently, the Schematic Views function simply creates a plug-in object that is essentially a 2D "Hidden Line" representation of a fixture or hanging position from the view that you specify.  You can interact with the lighting fixtures at the schematic view level by selecting the fixture and the clicking on Lighting Device Properties.  This will open up the "Lighting Device Properties" that looks similar to what would be displayed in the OIP.  I've had some success using the Spotlight Numbering Tool on the Schematic View objects.  Unfortunately, none of this information can be displayed graphically at the schematic view level so trying to keep track of what fixtures are what is pretty difficult when you're working with a large volume of fixtures.

     

    There are few posts in the forum discussing the inadequacies of this new feature at length.  It seems like its on the dev teams radar to make it more functional but who knows when they're going to roll out the fixes.  I've been beating my head up against this feature over the last week trying to draw vertical positions with no luck.


  8. @TomWhiteLight I would appreciate a shard file.  Hopefully, it will shed some light on how this is used in other applications other than my own unique workflow and I'm all for learning.  I too understand that it's still in its infancy, however, disrupting workflow because of it is less than ideal.

     

    Top view schematic views are fine.  What I'm having issues with are the vertical positions and displaying the data correctly without having to create additional steps in the workflow to obtain that data... even though it could just be temporary until VW releases a full functioning iteration of the tool.  I'm also seeing that 3D label legends do not display in a schematic view.  Photo attached for reference.

     

    Furthermore, not arguing the practicality of drawing the elements in 3D where they actually live within the space.  Speaking as part of a team that produces large scale bespoke corporate events and theatrical productions, we strive for as much accuracy as possible in the pre-production phase... some would venture to say too much.  Time wasted on-site translates to wasted money and the number crunchers get really itchy when that happens.  I do utilize Vision as my pre-viz solution when time/budget allows for it, so I can appreciate Vectorworks strides toward making the transition between the two programs more streamlined.  My argument is how that data is displayed once its created/drawn for the practicality of creating shop build drawings and installation drawings.

     

    Something I'm going to noodle around with is taking the varied levels of detail (Low, Medium, High) that you can apply to symbols and see if I can get Schematic Views to spit them out as well.  Perhaps that would be a temporary solution until this gets fine tuned.

     

    @Sebastiaan I completely agree that 3D first is a valid argument.  See above.  I'm generally not the first person to interact with a design before I'm tasked with detailing it out.  I am tasked, however, with making sure that those above me starting the design have the tools they need to initiate said design.  If they need to draw something up real quick but don't necessarily possess the skills (or patience) needed to draw in 3D first they will draw in 2D first and deal with the 3D later... but that is an argument saved for a different forum.  The other concern I have is that the graphical representation and the details within that comes with the 2D symbols are lost, especially when traditional fixtures come into play that are represented graphically.  Things like gel color representation in color fill, lensing, lamp wattage, and fixture orientation to name a few.  In my experience, these are details that are best represented graphically for quick reference, clarity and to save space on the drawing.

    Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 9.01.42 AM.png

    • Like 2

  9. With the introduction of Schematic Views, utilizing CPMV and DLVPs as means to communicate details in a 3D and 2D environment have become obsolete.  This is a pretty big bummer as that's really the best way to efficiently create vertical lighting positions.  Users who have updated to and adopted 2020 really have no recourse.  Yes, DLVPs still function as means of getting the 3D representation of the position into its proper location.  However, the fixtures will not point accurately at any focus point they have been assigned, regardless of manipulating the rotation along its cardinal axis'.  That ability has been removed from the software as a means to further support the MVR functionality.

     

    I understand thats its work in progress, as with most new features of VW, but this really needs to take priority over any introduction of a new features in future releases or service pack updates until the functionality of this feature has been ironed out.

     

    So, I'm asking for Vectorworks to reinstate the full functionality DLVPs until the Schematic View workflow is improved and truly is a valid replacement.

     

    I've been beating my head against this for about a week and came up with a small wishlist of features for Schematic Views that I feel would greatly improve the workflow:

     - Allow 2D label legends to translate to the Schematic View.

     - Allow user the option to create a "backwards" Schematic View by drawing elements in a 2D form first and then create the Schematic View.  Ideally, the result would be a "2D/3D symbol" that would be a footprint of the position in Top/Plan View and would show actual geometry when viewed in any of the 3D views.  

     - Navigate away from using Hidden Line rendering to create the Schematic View.  This utilizes GPU resources over CPU and can lead to longer, more taxing manipulation of the model.

     

    Many thanks to those involved.

    • Like 3

  10. @TomWhiteLight I'm sorry, but there is no "encouraging" users in this scenario if the've updated and adopted 2020 and have no recourse.  Utilizing DLVPs in the fashion that are is essentially dead.

     

    I don't want it to seem like I'm beating you personally up over this, but does VW have any metrics on what percentage of its users actually use or would use the MVR feature, should it be available to them in their workflow outside of VW, that would support a paradigm shift like this at this stage of the feature?  At this point, only MA and Robe support this feature with the use of their products.  I'm sure that more manufactures will adapt this feature in the future but at this time I don't see it being a justifiable reason to make a very common and practical workflow obsolete for a very large portion of the Vectorworks Spotlight users, especially those that don't have any practical usage for MVR.  Seems like a select few are controlling what the majority can or cannot make use of the software.

     

    You mention improvements to the Schematic Views being available in the next release.  Will this be in a service pack update or a major release like 2021?  A service pack update would ideal as the general rule of thumb for users is to stay far far away from the major releases until SP1 or SP2 are available.  Which means this at least a year out based on the trend-line of major releases.

     

    Back saving to 2019 is less than ideal as we have already adopted 2020 and converted our custom resources to 2020 compatibility.  This would also potentially cause more issues in other departments than it would really solve based on experience of having done this a few times for vendors that are not current on the software.  This may not be the case for other users who view this post but it applies to my offices' unique situation.

     

    I posted this in another forum post but wanted to post it here.  I would assume that any of the feedback that is posted in the forums are shared with the dev team.  I will also post this in the wish list section of the forums as well.  I figure the more heat that users put on this topic will help make it more apparent that this needs to be a priority.

     

    Wishlist of features for Schematic Views:

     - Allow 2D label legends to translate to the Schematic View.

     - Allow user the option to create a "backwards" Schematic View by drawing elements in a 2D form first and then create the Schematic View.  Ideally, the result would be a "2D/3D symbol" that would be a footprint of the position in Top/Plan View and would show actual geometry when viewed in any of the 3D views.  

     - Navigate away from using Hidden Line rendering to create the Schematic View.

     

    Many thanks again for all your help.

     


  11. @markdd I couldn't have said it better myself.

     

    My office made the switch to VW a little over a year ago as VW had more support for the industry than competitor drafting solutions.  For the most part, its been a great experience.  Especially, since I manage users with a very wide range of abilities, workflows, and ideals.  The trend-line that we been seeing is that VW is constantly adjusting key elements and introducing new features that supersede the older ones, making them obsolete.  This is great however, the new features that we are "forced" to use (using that term lightly) often either don't work at all or are clunky and sorta work until the second or third iteration of the feature in future releases of the software.  

     

    Schematic views is a great example of this.  Its replaced the concept of using a DLVP to help represent a vertical lighting position in its proper location with the process of drawing the elements in 3D first and then creating a simple view off to the side, completely ignoring the practicality of the 2D aspect of it.  The practical uses of a DLVP far outnumber those of the Schematic View... at this time.  I understand that the wizards at VW are constantly cooking stuff up and that updates to these items are in the works.  That being said, it's kind of ridiculous that this is how it unfolds.  Why release something in a fashion that completely disrupts someones workflow without an alternative?  I get the impression that the marketing team at VW have the engineers by the short-n-curlys by selling and releasing the concept of a feature before allowing enough time for the feature to actually work... I've seen this with a number of other features that rolled out in 2020.

     

    An additional concern about Schematic Views is that VW utilizes "Hidden Line Rendering" to create the Schematic View.  This render mode utilizes CPU resources over GPU resources and tends to chug every time you interact with the Schematic View elements as it has to "re-render/re-calculate" those objects.  Now, my machine has handles 3D modeling and rendering pretty well for being a laptop and having "limited" CPU and GPU resources.  However, I dread whenever I accidentally select Hidden Line rendering in a viewport.  Having to deal with this in the drafting stage is unexpected and pretty irritating as it just adds more time to the process than it would take detailing it out in 2D first.

     

    The available resources on how this feature works are lacking.  Anything referencing the feature in the VW support resources only lead to the original marketing videos, which are 3 minute clips on how great the tool is.  When searching the various VW forums, all the posts related to the topic show user after user asking "how does this feature work?" and then eventually discovering that it's still a huge work in progress.

     

    I can see Schematic Views being super useful and I love the concept. The forward thinking of interacting with the objects with pre-viz in mind is great.  I don't understand why the developers would elect to introduce a new feature knowing full well that it has a long list of enhancements needed before being fully practical and leave the end user with no recourse and a disrupted workflow.  This is an expensive program and it's not really a toy or something to tinker around with on the weekends and leave it in the garage until the following weekend... even though I'm completely guilty of tinkering with it on the weekend:)  Its main purpose, in the end, is to make us money by allowing us to communicate our concepts and ideas to vendors, clients, and anyone who needs to see drawings and renderings.  When I cannot accomplish this, I'm losing money by spending more time beating my head against it.

     

    @klinzey

    Wishlist of features for Schematic Views:

     - Allow 2D label legends to translate to the Schematic View.

     - Allow user the option to create a "backwards" Schematic View by drawing elements in a 2D form first and then create the Schematic View.  Ideally, the result would be a "2D/3D symbol" that would be a footprint of the position in Top/Plan View and would show actual geometry when viewed in any of the 3D views.  

     - Navigate away from using Hidden Line rendering to create the Schematic View.

     

    I've attached a screen capture of a ladder position that I detailed out in 3D and created a Schematic View.  I attached 3D label Legends to the fixtures as well to see if they would translate to the Schematic View, which they don't. Is there anything I can do to at least make this work?  My other concern is that the 2D label legends become jumbled up when the fixtures are stacked on top of each other like they are in a vertical position.  Is there anything we can do to alleviate this effect?

     

    Long post, I know, but it needs to be said.  I'm really looking forward to what Vectorworks has in store but the trend of releasing features that are buggy or not conducive to a workflow is super annoying.  My only wish at this point is that VW would take its end users and their workflow into more consideration before rolling out new features that supersede old ones without ensuring that the replacement is fully functional and truly necessary.

     

    Thanks again for all your help.

    Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 9.01.42 AM.png

    • Like 1

  12. @Sebastiaan I agree, the Schematic View does create some great elevations, however, its lacking practical functionality.

     

    I was able to find the "Create Plot and Model View" buried in the legacy tools in the workspace editor.  Which is awesome, however, the fixtures still do not rotate in 3D appropriately.  I'm led to believe that feature does not work currently.  this was confirmed by a user in another VW forum.


  13. @Sebastiaan See attached screen shot.  I messed around a little more with the schematic views and vertical positions.  I created some UTorm ladder symbols, converted them to hanging positions, and added some fixtures.  Works great.

     

    When I created the Schematic View, it created 2D line work of the various views as I selected them which I actually really like because the 2D Front View it created as its pretty detailed and accurate.  My issue is when it comes to the detailing process.  The lighting devices all have a label legend attached to them.  You can see it in the Top/Plan view.  All of the information that I plug into the fixtures does not translate to the Schematic View.  Also, the label legend information gets jumbled up in each other because of the overlap.  I tried to build a data tag that will return that information but no luck a data tags will not attach to the "Lighting Device in Schematic View" objects nor is there a parameter selection for said objects.

     

    Which brings me to my question... Aside from being able to slide fixtures around a little easier than doing it in a 3D view, what's the point of Schematic View?  Unless there is a way to translate the label legend display to the Schematic View objects I would need to create a 3D label legend and create my layouts from a 3D view.  Just seems like unnecessary steps.

     

    Thanks again for the help so far.

    Screen Shot 2020-02-06 at 12.52.54 AM.png


  14. @TomWhiteLight @Sebastiaan Valid points indeed, however, my take on it is that detailing a plot at the 3D level for a more inexperienced "set in their ways" user is cumbersome and clunky.  Several of these types work in my office.  The Plot and Model view solved being able to allow them to draw and detail vertical positions on a 2D plane while still allowing for an accurate 3D representation of the position.  In fact, Vectorworks just released a webinar that touched on the benefits of utilizing this method, which is now considered obsolete.  

     

    DLVP would work just as well, however, the lights do not reflect the correct hang and rotation when they are assigned to a focus point.  Even after changing the X, Y, Z rotation of the fixture, they still reflect the orientation  that they have in the layer that the DLVP is referencing.  Is there a setting that I'm missing somewhere?

     


  15. On 12/10/2019 at 1:30 AM, TomWhiteLight said:

    The Create Schematic Views create a 2d (graphic) of the lighting device and position, it's more a case of 3d first then generate a 2d element for the plot. Draw your elements in 3d  and then get vectorworks to create the schematic of how that position goes together.

     

    Then what is the best method to tackle a ladder type position where fixtures are stacked on top of each other?  It's seems to be more efficient to draw and detail the position in a 2D environment over 3D.  I'm ultimately trying to do the detail work in a 2D elevation and then create a "footprint".  

     

    Schematic views at face value seem like a great concept but it's just not a solid replacement for plot and model views (with exception to vision export, of course).


  16. @markdd Thanks for the video.  I gave it a try and it worked for the most part.  The biggest challenge is that I need to keep the exact geometry of the edges.  It seems that every time I loft or create surface from NURBS curves it alters the perimeter, preventing an exact fit with the rest of the model.  Could that be the NURBS count or some other setting?  It would get even worse once I subtracted the lower potion to cut out the openings on the side.

     

    That being said, I had to abandon that process due to timeline and stick with some of the original mesh geometry that we received.  I was able to clean it up and purge out all the 3D Polygons that were onto of the original mesh surface, likely came over in the import.  

     

    My new question is this, how to smooth out the facets?  They appear in OpenGL as well as a final render.  I've tried changing the mesh smoothing options in the Document preferences with no luck but I believe thats not what I'm looking for here.  Pictures attached for reference.

     

    Thanks again.

    Screen Shot 2020-01-20 at 12.17.53 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2020-01-20 at 12.19.16 PM.png


  17. Hi All,

     

    Need some help on something.  I'm trying to model a pretty complex structure based on a drawing that I received from the vendor.  Unfortunately, I believe the original file was exported poorly, likely on purpose as its been a battle to get a drawing in the first place.

     

    That being said, I'm trying to create some surfaces of the exterior of the structure.  I traced the main surface lines with NURBS curves, however, when I try to loft or "create surface from NURBS curves" it either fails or creates something that isn't what I'm trying to model.  

     

    Attached to this post is a screen capture video of what I'm trying to model based on the NURBS curves.  I'm not understanding why it will not loft between all 4 curves.  The closest I could get is lofting between the bottom 3 curves but then it fills in some random curve up top.  I really need it to populate all 4 curves at those specific paths.  There is another bit of geometry, the curve in the middle that you can't really see, is curve the structure makes at that point.  I've tried dicing everything down and creating a surface and use that curve as a mirror line but I couldn't get a surface to be created in any way.

     

    How do I get this to work?  I've made sure all curves have the same degree number as well as going the same direction as its "parallel" partner.  I've been through every video I can find and after almost 20 hours of banging my head against this I'm ready to give up out of frustration... except that's not an option.  Why can't I simply say create a surface using these 5 curves?

     

    SO, some help would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks in advance.


  18. Another user has brought to my attention that on several occasions there have been issues with truss missing from a specific hanging position, leaving an empty hanging position object with just the text.  The file was originally built in 2019 but converted to 2020 when we all upgraded.  The file is also a project file, however, none of the other users that have been in the file have reported any issues with it.  I recommended they discard their working file and create a new one.  So far, that seems to have worked but I'm curious if this is a potential issue with 2020 that we need to look out for.  I think I came across this when I was first testing 2020 back in November before we made the switch but I can't remember exactly.

     

    Thanks in advance.

 

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...