Jump to content

jeff prince

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jeff prince


    14 hours ago, Carol Reznor said:

    Thanks a bunch for all the helpful feedback!


    If I understand correctly: say you do put the unreferenced architect file into your referenced survey. You would just  'Geolocate Rotate' - the survey so it corresponds with the building and its drawing orientation.

    Which makes sense - instead of first getting everything 'real world' correct and then trying to rotate everything back to the drawing angle of the architect. Right?

    And there is no way to rotate both the georeferenced site together with the building (as this is 'furniture') in one rotate action and keep the geolocation correct?

    Thanks again!


    No.  Architects who follow this should familiarize themselves with the works of Copernicus to understand the fundamental flaw with this approach🙂

    Perhaps it heresy to say, but buildings should be rotated about the site, not the other way around.


    Here's what I do:

    1. create project file, reference survey in.  reference Civil in.  These are almost always located with respect to the real world position.

    2. import architecture (not georeferenced or located with respect to the real world)

    3. Move and/or rotate building into correct location on the site

    4. Use "rotate plan" to orientate my site with referenced buildings to suit my document's purpose

    5. Generate viewport to a sheet.

    6. Repeat steps 4 & 5 as required.


    I see no benefit, only huge downside risks, in rotating a site.  The computer will do all the heavy lifting for you, we aren't drawing on paper anymore 🙂


    @Tom W.you are getting pretty good at interpreting what I mean 🙂


    similar topic, same benefits...


    • Like 1

  2. @zoomer yes, I treat an Architect’s building like a piece of site furnishing… no georeferencing in the building file.  I reference the building into my site plan and position it accordingly.  Same thing in Revit, especially on multi building campus projects.  With the base unit differences between building and site conventions and how most architects seem to like orientating their buildings for drawing production rather than real world positioning, keeping georeferencing limited to a master site model seems to be the safest and quickest way to work.  When you have projects with duplicated buildings on a site, things could really get interesting when buildings are georeferenced 😉

    • Like 3

  3. 1 hour ago, MarcelP102 said:

    Nice workaround Jeff, but that would not help with wall layers (or you have to repeat this multiple times?).


    _Lerous, you can see at the Roadmap more complex wall shapes are being worked on. It's part of the development and research page. I guess VW 2022 or 2023 wil have slanted walls. The wall tool need some development work to be at same level as other software. Give it some time. No real solution for now though..


    That wasn't a criteria of the OP's question.  They simply asked for slanted walls.

    Other than making it with solid or surface modeling tools, how would you get today's Vectorworks Wall tool to perform as depicted?

    We can't all hold our collective breaths for Vectorworks to come up with tools for the job.

    Many have tapped out waiting for stacked wall components, an improved stair tool, and proper skylights to name a few 🙂


  4. @_leorus Hopefully one of the architecture gurus will weigh in here.


    I believe you would have to create your slanted wall using a wall recess, basically a 3d extrusion that removes that portion from a wall.  Then you would have to configure your windows with an offset to land in the correct location.  Unfortunately, curtain walls will not take a wall recess, so this would have to be manually modeled.  Perhaps there is a better way, but that's how I would address it.





  5. @Tom W. That is an outstanding idea and should really be considered.  We should be able to build assemblies by simply picking, rather than configuring, the components.  This would emulate the actual method of construction.  A carpenter doesn't have to configure their materials before screwing them together 🙂


    I suppose a manual method of controlling things would be to build slab kits for each use case (roof, slab, ceiling, hardscape, etc) built up with every possible component fully configured.  Then, when you need to generate a new slab style, simply delete the unneeded components and save it as a new style.  It's a bit silly, but would help achieve consistency when setting up a new office standard quickly.

    • Like 2

  6. 4 hours ago, JazzLX said:

    I don't think that VW has turned into Skynet just yet.... maybe in future updates?


    Perhaps, rather than it being the export that is screwing with the textures, it is the way it imports and sees the alpha, converting it to the black/white opacity map for use within software, therefore that's what it exports?


    I highly doubt that VW differentitates between user textures and shipped textures, so they must not be built in exactly the same way, probably something under the hood somewhere.


    It clearly isn't just the VW import into Twinmotion, as there are quite a few videos dealing with the issue in Twinmotion. Out of curiousity, have you tried using the direct export to datasmith function? Maybe it's fixed there...?

    Based on your responses, its clear you have not gone thru the exercise of exploring this specific issue.  It’s not a twin motion issues, it is a Vectorworks problem with how it exports.  Datasmith and videos on the internet don’t fix it either.

    • Like 2

  7. @JazzLX appreciate your interest in the problem, but that's not the issue.  Your video shows how to make a PNG with a transparent background.  I already have those, 1000s of those and do not use the black and white opacity map 🙂  Twin Motion is not using the black and white opacity map either, you can delete them from the C4D export and it has no effect on the Twinmotion import.  The problem is Vectorworks is adding a black background to my carefully crafted PNG textures during the export via C4D.  Interestingly enough, Vectorworks does not vandalize the textures that shipped with the software, just user created ones, even when they are built exactly the same as the stock textures.  Perhaps the software is just being vindictive for having the audacity to use my own textures?  I did post a laborious work around in this thread, but I have yet to hear a reason why Vectorworks treats user textures differently than default textures provided with the software.  Any ideas on that?

  8. @JazzLX  you should post some examples of what is happening and how large the error actually is.  I’m guessing it’s not the coordinate system and something else, but we are all just guessing at this point based on the information provided.

  9. @edwardus the fat lines are likely AutoCAD polylines with a polyline thickness set to something very large.  Simply edit the Vectorworks symbol or object and set the line weight to by class.  A CTB file is an AutoCAD file that tells AutoCAD which lineweight to print a particular color.  Whom ever made the dwg is using the antiquated color based system instead of the modern style based method.  That’s actually pretty good for you though, as color = lineweight for that file.  The person who sent the file didn’t do anything wrong, the problem is on your end.


    You just need to set your dwg import up to handle the colors to your liking, or change them after the fact.

  10. @Melanie Sparks that's how those library items are setup, the cars are 2D/3D hybrid objects.  It's one of the core features making Vectorworks great.


    If you don't like the 2D behavior, you must edit it accordingly.

    From left to right, viewed in 2D Top/Plan view...

    the default behavior, a manually colored version, and using a screen shot of the rendered view in the 2D symbol, all of which are 2D/3D symbols.  Files attached.



    car methods.vwx car methods v2020.vwx

    • Like 2


    17 hours ago, Matt Overton said:

    Yes, oh yes....

    Vectorworks object have fill attribute there is never a need to have a line object and a copy of it to fill. 

    Sorry pet hate that seems to crop up with all exAutocad users we've retrained. 


    While the vectorworks fill attribute sure is nice, changing the lineweight of complex hatches in Vectorworks compared to AutoCAD is the tradeoff.

    ...and a time consuming one at that 😞

    • Like 1

  12. 3 minutes ago, NLGD said:

    Hi @jeff prince that's helpful.  I just added all the stakes that the surveyor had given me.

    This might sound an odd question but do i basically create the site model then 'read' the detail of what's where from underneath in the 2D view and put in beds, trees, paths etc?  Will they automatically be added at the right level or do I have to do something else?


    Yes, you have to filter the points a bit, they oftentimes include building eves, tops of wall, tops of paving, etc that we usually want to model with the appropriate tools.

    Probably a good time to take the Vectorworks University class on site design.

    Plant objects will "send to surface" and have a 3D representation, so that part is easy, just use plant objects

    Plant Areas and Hardscapes in the Texture Bed configuration are easy too, as they will conform to your site model surface.

    More advanced work is using 3d slabs, walls, and hardscapes to depict those features as they are actually constructed.

    Take that class and a lot of the "how" is covered.



    • Like 2

  13. @Tom W.  The workflow was actually discouraged at one point in some VWX training.  Reminds me of a site modeling training on Vectorworks University where they say you should never have more than one site model in a file 😉


    Anyhow, symbols with complex classing schemes are pretty standard method for any CAD program.  When an Object can contain a symbol, there are lots of possibilities for exploiting the behavior and utility of the object.

    • Like 3

  14. @Tom W. Yes, you get it!  It's a wonderful capability of the plant objects.  Seasons, maturities at different ages, sketchy vs photographic vs modeled, etc.  Lots of potential with a disciplined application of classes.

    • Like 1

  15. 23 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

    Interesting to know Jeff that having different plant objects on different classes for different contexts is common practise. Could you share some images of the kind of thing you’re talking about? You mean one set of plants for an artistic representation of the scene + another for photorealistic?


    I was referring to putting different representations of a single plant object on different classes.  A single plant object can contain a ton of graphic information both 2D and 3D.  I do not see the benefit of having the same plant duplicated.  The attached image is a single plant with many different display characteristics, including an actual 3D model in addition to two different image props.  There are 15 viewports pointing at the same plant object using viewport overrides to show the desired graphics/model.  Makes sense?



    • Like 4


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...