PVA - Admin

No no, it wasn't bad or incorrectly made at all (which is sometimes the case, but not here), just something Vectorworks wasn't able to handle withing the current "rules" of the Shell tool. Also, I don't mean to say that it is unreasonable to wish for the same robustness as another application, just that if that is the wording the request gets I can tell you from experience that it will not be accepted as a feature to be added. Currently, there isn't a way to suggest a large, sweeping change to an existing component of Vectorworks either internally or externally. For example; the conversations that have been had here on the boards about our UI. It is ABSOLUTELY true that Vectoworks would benefit dramatically from an update to its standard UI, taking advantage of the high level of screen real estate that was unheard of in the time that the UI was originally designed. However, there isn't a direct request/suggestion pipe that leads to this sort of broad overarching change. I will soon be endeavoring to change this fault in our process, (after my current all-time-consuming project that I can not go into detail about yet is complete) but for the time being, when I post clarifications like my previous one, I just mean that the phrasing of the requests needs to be altered and refined in order for it to be accepted into the current revision process.

The answer I got back was "Not all, but most." I agree with your concept but I have to submit specifics, a feature request that just reads "All NURBS commands need to work in every possible situation" will go nowhere. Anytime anyone comes across a specific scenario where Vectorworks' behavior regarding NURBS is inappropriately handled, please get my attention and I will submit it to be corrected. I would like to be able to submit large sweeping things like that, but I have to grind it down to very specific functionality improvements.

Spoke with engineering as to why the shell failed, it turns out this particular NURBS surface was a "trimmed" NURBS surface. If you select it and look in the OIP, you can see that it says "Untrim" (which we don't want to do) but that revers it back to the original shape, which was a rectangle. It also reports that this NURBS surface has only 4 vertices, which is not the case, but its actually reporting the original vertices of the trimmed rectangular surface. In this example it was simple enough just to convert the un-shell-able NURBS to polygons, add surface to combine all the polygons, then extrude the resulting poly to the desired thickness, but I am submitting a request for a more informative error message if a scenario like this comes up in the future, where there is no way for the user to know why the operation failed.

Currently a specialized driver program would be putting the cart before the horse. Once Vectorworks has been optimized to get the most out of your graphics hardware (which will be soon, it isn't currently) then it would be prudent to pursue custom drivers if performance was being hindered by the standard ones. It isn't a bad idea at all, but there are a few intermediate steps that needs to be taken first.

I meant grabbing the two sides adjacent to the filleted corner, didn't mean to say two selection handles. The live display of the curve to be created seems key as well, submitting request now.

Would the selection handles at the two arc ends be the only preferred way, or would the single control handle system that the Rounded Rectangle has be useful as well? Thinking one of those types of control handle per-corner.

The only way to ensure that the camera will move smoothly is to try to keep that line as flat as possible in the editing window between cameras/saved views. If you aren't able to flatten that line out, then normally the best way around it is to add more views until you can, a view between the one before it and the one after it. The more views you use, the easier it will be to control not only the speed of the view but also the exact angles it passed through. However, the tool is very much in need of a UI upgrade and it is definitely in the works.

Submitting request now.

If they're going to be the same objects in the same relative locations to each other, its easiest to just duplicate the entire layer in the organization dialogue box, then adjust its heights and rename it. If there is a lot of other geometry on the layer you don't want to duplicate, you can select the walls/windows/doors, duplicate in place, then just assign them to the new layer in the object info palette.

This can be done via saved views, you can set up the current active layers/stories you want to see along with the classes. If you navigate by saved views you can keep custom class visibilities per-layer. Just switching active layers in the view bar will allow you to travel between layers without altering class visibilities.

In Advanced Section Properties (in the bottom of the Object Info Palette for the section viewport) I believe you can control the pen and fill via class attributes under "Attributes"

Tools > Options > Vectorworks Preferences > Interactive tab > Interactive Appearance Settings Either in the main tab or the Black Background tab (if you're using that) you'll want to change the "General - Background -" colors to what you want. By default it does a green ground and blue sky when you're in a perspective view, when you aren't it defaults to a different color.

Do you mean like Offset Insertion mode? Or is there something this isn't doing that you would want instead? [img:center]http://i.imgur.com/RE7HNV9.png[/img]

This is possible now, click the small arrow to the right of "Resources" in the Resource Browser and select View As > Thumbnails. 2D objects will show as 2D, 3D will shows as 3D and hybrids should show the last edited view.

Wouldn't shell as a whole for me either, however I was able to slice it up with the split tool into 4-5 parts and each part then shelled separately. Then they cooperated with a Solid Addition command. Test file attached. Not sure why the slicing is required however, submitting it now to see why that would matter.

If we are talking about a 2D polygon measured in 2D, then the above two posts are most likely correct. If it is a polygon rotated onto a 3D plane or a 3D polygon, you can get incorrect measurements depending on HOW you measured the segment.

Those tools are for planar objects and solids. For NURBS, normally you would use the Shell tool to give it a thickness, then you can modify it as a regular solid from there.

Another side-note: The closest thing to this actually seems to be a Surface Array, but currently the deforming action that occurs when the array object is not within a group or symbol is not user-controllable enough to accomplish most tasks like this. This is a decent example of what we are going for, but users should be able to use 2D geometry to start with an end up with a "wrapped" 3D object afterwards:

Yes, its key that this be an automated feature as well. Being able to manually warp and bend existing objects is useful as well (and has been included in varying forms in something like 10 separate requests recently) but having it be able to automatically "read" a surface and "apply" another piece of geometry to it without the user having to specify anything other than perhaps an offset is what the focus of this seems to be. I will make that clear in the request.

The only demo we offer is time restricted. The only version that does not have restrictions is the full retail version, however if you check with your distributor there may be something they can offer. I am fairly certain the localized installer (German) media that you have will only install the German language version, but check with them just to be sure.

That sort of deformed/irregular shape you are going to have difficulty creating I suspect. Currently the Sweep command would let you get the normal wine glass object in a few seconds, but deforming that side/edge in that manner is not something Vectorworks' is very good at yet. There are changes coming that will make this easier, but for now you may encounter problems. There are some users here that have gotten very creative with raw 3D modeling and may know of an easy way to do this, but I do not know of any I would recommend.

I am not saying to send the files to tech support one at a time, I am saying that you should contact technical support and ask them about conversion options. We have not had conversion utilities posted online since MiniCAD 8/VectorWorks 9 or earlier.

What are you trying to create? Can you post a reference image of what you're going for or something similar to it? There are a LOT of different ways to accomplish 3D models, often its just a matter of using the easiest tool for the object you're trying to create.

Yep, check with tech support directly.

Submitting request now. In that example, you're correct. There would be a lot of stretch/tolerance variation depending on the material you are using. But bending in more than "one dimension" also includes regular 3D shapes such as cubes or rectangular prisms. Unfolding these types of objects is more commonly needed and doesn't need to take into account any stretching or bending of the intended material.