_James

Thanks Stephan, a toolbar that has text and cell formatting would go a long way. It's painful to open up the dialogue to format cells. Essentially just copy the Google Sheets toolbar - that would be great!

I use a 2021 M1 Pro Macbook with 16GB memory, file sizes never more than 500MB - I don't have obvious issues with slow files, perhaps only with files with 100+ sheets. @Flair-Studio - I share your rendering pain! I think for serious rendering (spending 1 day+ per week on rendering) a separate PC is the way to go. I did buy one but really don't enjoy working on a PC. It's collecting dust now and I just don't do much rendering. Who knows what the future holds now that the M3 has hardware accelerated ray tracing which was the limitation that stopped Twinmotion's Path Tracer being available on Mac. The only thing that's guaranteed is that it's going to be expensive!

Worksheet "pagination" is on the roadmap under "Active Research". Although it's been on there since at least April 2019 when I referred to it here. I really hope this gets some more attention soon because the current worksheets are incredibly difficult to work with due to this and a few other simple things such as how difficult they are to format.

I'm using 2024 on Mac, no issues - it's working fine.

I would have thought that filters were a feature added to try to tackle this request in a different way as it was likely too time intensive/would have unintended consequences if done in ways that have been suggested here. I would also like to see this functionality added. Particularly at an early stage we create lots of design layers with different options and end up making blank layers with titles like '- - - - - - - Option 1 - - - - - -' to help make the navigation palette more legible. Surely this workflow can be improved upon! In the image below all of the layers could be made into 6 groups.

Crazy! This would be great to have. Nothing makes me feel more dumb than trying to make a hatch in VW.

@Christiaan, no - only "Share". Feel free to edit it for me if you can do that with your moderator powers.

really good illustration of many the issues

Definitely. For us I would see it it working like any other resource that we share office-wide through the resource manager. The 'standard' set is kept for all to use and then it can be modified for a specific project. Just like we keep symbols of dining tables in standard sizes but if a client has a specific one in mind we'll alter it to match. The key point being that if we edit the symbol in one file it doesn't alter every dining table on every project!

I can't seem to edit the post i'm afraid otherwise I would! Am I doing something wrong?

Seconded. It can be an incredibly powerful tool that saves a huge amount of time but is severely limited in its current form.

It's certainly possible that i've missed it, but I have never seen this method of working with project sharing described in any official Vectorworks help articles or project literature and it seems that i'm not alone. Therefore the method you describe seems to be a workaround to give better performance than the standard way of working with Project Sharing which has some issues, hence my fragility comment. If it wasn't susceptible to error, no workaround would be required. Nonetheless I appreciate you engaging and trying to improve people's experience. We will give it a try in the office, although the first reaction from colleagues was "that seems a lot of effort". If this is the "official" way to do it then I hope in future we just get rid of working files altogether and everyone opens the project file daily. Perhaps a working file is created in the background but there's no need for a user to manually back it up and delete it each time.

Interesting - I have never heard/read anyone recommending this before. Unfortunately I think this shows the fragility of project sharing in 2023 and previous versions if this is what's required. I hope 2024 is more stable but I haven't tried it yet.

I would say yes. I think there are lots of things one could change to make it more intuitive, this one included. Sketchup does a much better job of this but then they have maybe 10% of the tools Vectorworks has? I've never understood why we need a "constrained linear dimension" and an "unconstrained linear dimension". In my opinion we should just have "unconstrained linear dimension" and hold alt to make it constrained. Fewer tools please!

I use the "Flip Horizontal" command a lot on objects. I would like it to flip the alignment of text. When a block of text has it's horizontal alignment set to 'left', it would be nice if using the 'flip horizontal' command would make the text horizontally align 'right'. Perhaps the same for 'Flip Vertical' for vertical text alignment for consistency, but I don't really use that too often.

Well there we go - M3 has hardware accelerated ray tracing. Let's see how long it takes for software to be able to utilise it!

I've had the same issue.

Thanks for the help @Tom W.! Looking much better now, although i've somehow lost the ability to upload pictures! Which site modifier option do you recommend? I have used retaining edge but this gives a perfectly flat pad which isn't the case. It gives the right look but if there's a more accurate way to do it that would be worth knowing about. Also, why not just use hardscape drape without the site modifier? Is this to get better control of the levels of the road?

and sorry yes, the red section is the road

Thanks @Tom W., I'll give it a go!

What is the best/easiest way to show roads in Site Models? We often create site models from 2d DWG survey files that look like this: From there it's easy to make a Site Model, I just add stake objects at the heights specified and run the "AEC-Terrain-Site Model from Survey Data" command which results in something like this: From there however it doesn't clearly show the road which adds a lot of context to the model. What is the best way to add the road? The series of "Roadway" tools? Site Modifiers? Whilst it needs to be accurate, it doesn't have to be to the millimetre, we're really just looking to include the shape of the road at the right level to site the building on the model better and make it easier to read the site.

Not saying you're the only one but I think it's an improvement. Totally agree with @line-weight on dialogue boxes but it seem that VW are at least thinking about UI and how to improve which is good. I've been using VW for around 8 years and haven't noticed much effort directed to UI before this. I think there will also be many hidden improvements that I haven't really noticed yet - in the early stages there were lots of things that had to be pointed out to me for me to notice, but once they had I realised the benefit.

Which version of VW are you using? It would be disappointing if this is with the new version of Project Sharing in VW2024