[Using a regular serial number and a beta serial number on one pc]

Hi at all,

 

I would like to use the Vectorworks beta versions and the "normal" Vectorworks on my PC, but I have the issue that the beta version started with my regular serial number (perhaps because this one is already in my registry). When I changed the serial number within in Vectorworks beta, it worked fine, but now the normal Vectorworks crashes while starting because the serial number in the registry is overwritten by the beta serial number.

 

Does anyone has an idea how to fix that?

 

Thanks,

Tina

 

[Worksheet calculating Spare Fixture counts]

Is there any solution by now? I had the same problem today. I would like to have a worksheet with all fixture types inside, summarized by instrument type. Then I would like to multiply the sum of each type with their wattage.

 

So for example I have a worksheet with the count in cell A, the instrument typ in cell B and the wattage in cell C.

 

If I multiply cell A and C, I only get the value from cell C. Like Chad said, it seems that in cell A the value is not really the sum of the instrument types but still the "1".

 

Any solutions?

[Vision 2020 & NDI]

It was only a test for an upcoming production where I need to stream an HDMI signal via NDI in Vision.

 

I found out that SDI via NDI converter works in Vision, only HDMI doesn't.

[Vision 2020 & NDI]

Hi at all,

 

did someone already play around with an external NDI stream using an NDI converter? I got the problem, that my external stream is shown in the NewTec Studio monitor, but Vision says that the stream failed and don't show anything. The internal NDI stream from the Test pattern tool for example works.

 

My setup was a laptop connected with a NDI converter (birddog studio) via HDMI and the converter connected with another laptop with Vision on it. I just wanted to stream the screen of the first laptop into Vision.

 

Any idea?

 

Thanks,

Tina

[Vision 2019 SP3 MVR Improvements]

11 hours ago, klinzey said:

Vision has the same style user manual that is available for Vectorworks. It's accessible via the help menu or by pressing F1. 

 

 

That`s right, but when I used it last time most of the points I wanted to know weren`t written down there or some important points within the explanation were missing. But I will look through it.

 

The point is not to compete with a free software, especially GrandMa 3D also has many problems. A lot of people are interested in Vision. What I wanted to say is changing to a program that the programmer find hard to understand will not work. They would spend money for Vision if they see an advantage for their work. And in the programmer world it`s not only the rendering quality (which is really good in Vision) that matters, but more an easy and time saving workflow to transform a Vectorworks file into a visualisation.

[Vision 2019 SP3 MVR Improvements]

On 7/3/2019 at 1:57 PM, Cory Pattak said:

Hi Brandon,

 

There's a lot of info in there, most of which I understand, some of which I don't. All I'll say is that at the end of the day, I don't think new users are thinking that in depth about a program. Ultimately it comes down to 1) Is this software right for me, 2) Is it worth the cost, 3) Is the learning curve manageable. 

 

Showing that these measurements are in inches is obviously a minor thing. But there are many of these little things like this scattered throughout the program, some of which we've discussed in the past couple days...areas of the program that are buggy, or are unintuitive, or don't match VW behavior. Obviously VW (and Vision) is a business and the ultimately goal is to sell licenses. When a potential user downloads the demo, they are gonna try it out, and either decide Vision is for them, or it isn't. I can say at the moment that within the theatrical lighting design community (at least in NY) the decision generally seems to be that "Vision is not for me." Spotlight users are using Capture, or Light Converse, or another alternative to Vision or not even bothering with Previz. With all due respect to the hard work the entire Vision team has put in to improve the program, a new user doesn't know or necessarily care about all the back end reasons a program functions the way it does. (I know you're laying it out for me because we get more technical here on the Beta board, delving into the "Why") For most users, it's a gut feeling..."do I like using this software." So a lot of the reports I file, are about trying to address all those  little hiccups that collectively add up to a piece of software that many people are just deciding doesn't work for them. Valid reasons or not, the end user just wants the calm duck above the water, they are not interested in what the legs are doing underneath. 

 

 

If I'm understanding what this means, I think this is a HUGE step in trying to get Vision into the hands of more people. The info in the Properties dialogue box still looks somewhat like back end code. The missing units, the presence of "True" or "False." (Obv there's a million checkboxes in VW and none of them say True/False, they are just a checkbox.) What the engineers code and the what the users see should be very different, and the user's experience should drive the UI, not having the code dictate the UI. I say this as a completely non-technical, non-code writing person. I think it's going to continue to be difficult to acquire new users until Vision feels a little less "code-y" and a little more user friendly. (Even though it has taken a big step foward in the past 2 years) This is the main feedback I'm hearing from other designers. And with ETC's 'Augmented' software on the horizon, which is VERY user friendly (and free), designers are going to be even more reluctant to spend time in a program they feel is unintuitive or comes with a set of asterisks of all the tasks that it still doesn't do well yet, but is on the list for down the road.

 

Just my two cents based on talking to a lot of other LDs.

 

thanks

Cory

I'd like to mention the importance of all Cory said because basically it's the summary of nearly all I told you at the beginning of this year and I hope that this also helps Brandon to push the importance of some points to the decision makers:

 

If Vision isn't intuitive (especially for Vectorworks users), they won't use it because there are some other (partially cheaper) visualisation programs on the market (grandMA 3D, WYSIWYG) they already use. Why should they change to a program that takes a lot time and work to understand? And the point that Vision looks better than other visualizer will NOT be the deciding point. I can only speak for all of the LDs and lighting programmer I know and work with but I am very sure that this is the standard in Germany: at the end the lighting programmer is the one that decides which visualisation program will be used. And for him it's not the most important point that it looks good. This is a good selling point for the LD, but again... at the end he is not the one who decides. And for the programmer it is most important that he can work fast and intuitiv with the software, that he can make quick changes during the preprogramming and that the fixtures behave in the software like they do in reality.

 

So as Cory mentioned, there are some "small" things like the measuring unit but at the end these things will make the decision if someone buys a Vision licence or not. As you know I had a lot of troubles last year finding out what these numbers stand for and it tooks me a lot of time to make small changes in the Vision file like lifting the trusses 1m up because they decided this during the preprogramming or to tell anybody on which height a truss actually is when I don't wanted to run the Vectorworks file the whole time. I had the time to figure it out because we made this test project but anybody else would go back to his known program to save time.

 

Especially there is no Vision manual at the moment the program has to be user friendly!

 

And for really good lighting design renderings where the look is the most important thing, in my opinion at the moment Vision also isn't the program to choose because often the lighting design is made by persons who don't use lighting consoles very often so the need pallettes where they can control colour, gobos and things like that easily without using a lighting console (like Capture, Cinema4D).

 

So Vision needs to decide if it wants to be a previz programm for lighting design - than it needs some more tools - or a preprogramming software - than all these "small" things that make working with it so complicated (I also mentioned them in my mail at the beginning of this year) need to be fixed.

 

By the way... please keep on making Vision usuable in mm because otherwise it will be hard to distribute it in Europe.

 

Thanks,

Tina