Jump to content

PVA - Jim

Vectorworks, Inc Employee
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PVA - Jim

  1. In that case, contact tech@vectorworks.net directly. They can walk you through the process step by step.
  2. It looks like you have Rotate Plan enabled, does it not revert to normal if you go to View > Standard Views > Top/Plan?
  3. There should be no issue with having both on the same machines. It should be ensured that the last 6 of the serial numbers on each machine used for 2018 correspond to the last 6 used on those machines for 2019, so you don't get multiple machines thinking the same license is in use because a different version of the same license is running somewhere else.
  4. Not in this case, no. Even though they are progressive in version numbering, development is not always so linear. 2018 had significant display issues, caused by a system that was fixed in 20019 but was a completely different and older system in 2017. Even though a lot of it might look the same on the top, the guts change all the time as we try to make things faster.
  5. The core and driving reason we do not patch older versions after their end of life is due directly to the way we build the software itself. When we maintain a "build", even though it might LOOK very similar from one version to another, it is a separate line of development and takes. Vectorworks 2018 and 2019 may look very similar certainly from the UI side, but they have many very different and incompatible components. This means a number of things that influence what we can and can't do: 1) When we fix a bug in a newer version of Vectorworks, that fix doesn't always work/apply to a prior version. That was the case with the section line appearance bug and quite a few others visual issues in SP2 for 2019, the fix was a change to the VGM that without significant modification, the previous versions could not accept. Effectively, we would have had to put forth the same effort to fix 2018 separately from the effort to fix 2019. This is why the issue did not receive a patch. 2) Once we release a version of Vectorworks, within days, we start work on a newer one. However, it can be a bit obscured to users how many versions of Vectorworks we have up in the air at any one time. For example now that 2018 has been sunset/reached end-of-life, we are maintaining Vectorworks 2019 publicly and Vectorworks 2020 internally. In addition to that, we often have engineers working on what will be Vectorworks 2021, or at the very least on features that depend on features that won't exist until 2020. This means that we already, at minimum, have to maintain 3 separate development environments/developer environment versions just to maintain regular operations as we do today. 3) We do indeed have to make a call on things like "How much are we willing to slow or cancel current support and future development to maintain older versions?" and the answer has been since I worked here "For one year after release." The way that many companies have chosen to address this, is to either go completely versionless or web-based, where you always log in to the latest version of the product and you have no control over the versioning, or they offer some sort of maintenance plan like we do with Service Select. However, since in this industry we are one of the (not few but certainly smaller than the big guys) holdouts that are not forcing subscription programs on users we are definitely going to have a higher percentage users who are used to the older purchase models like we had pre-12.5, where you bought a version and used it for a number of years before switching. This is of course a personal preference kind of thing, but I'm personally in the camp of wanting to own what I paid for after a handshake. I do not think we will be changing this any time soon. We may offer monthly or yearly subscriptions as an option for students and companies who ramp up and down their staff frequently, but I do not see us forcing this on the entire user base. Now, this is all aside to the OTHER core issue here, which from the users point of view is (please forgive my dramatic oversimplification): "I bought a Thing2. That Thing2 doesnt do what I need it to do, which is one of the things it is supposed to do when working normally. Thing1 I owned last year did it and still does. Thing3 does it too, but I already own Thing2 so why should I have to now buy Thing3?" That's the harder part for me at least. But looking across the vast sea of software packages, that's the norm. This has always bothered me. We can go with the car analogy as well, if I bought a car from Honda and the one they sold me just doesn't stop when I hit the breaks, it wouldn't matter if OTHER people weren't experiencing this problem, I'd be able to get a replacement car from Honda right away. This reality just isn't so in the software industry. I have no answer for that, it's bigger than I will ever be. I never like the "That's above my pay grade" moments but this is a big one. I would suggest that the reason the industries differ so dramatically is because 1) software generally can't cause a deadly accident. 2) software updates come, by design AND by demand, much faster than the development of things like microwaves or cars or skyscrapers. Speed is often favored over attention to detail. Quantity over Quality. That's very much the direction we started to head awhile ago (2009ish) and was exactly why we have the quality issues we have today. That kind of leads us here: It is absolutely and completely up to YOU to decide whether we merit your money, which you of course know. But if you believe that we are attempting to wring money from users unfairly or that we intentionally refrain from patching old versions, then I would absolutely understand if you no longer wanted to do business with us. People don't come to this forum for no reason, they don't post things expecting me to throw them candy, they post because they either want to gain knowledge, or they want the product to be BETTER. If they wanted another tool that was already available, they wouldn't be posting here, theyd've already moved on. The positive change I've wanted to see in this company happens with increasing frequency, but quality is not simply a switch we can flick and leave in place. It was a change to how we reviewed tasks, chose features and drove development. I have now watched engineering managers rank up to directors and vice presidents in this company. They know their stuff, they know what's possible and what's not, and they know the product more intimately than I or many users here probably can. The right people are in the right places, heck our CEO started out as one of our first engineers. We don't just pluck staff from the job market bucket, their (and my!) lives are deeply interconnected with this company and Vectorworks itself. We don't make decisions with the intentions of stiffing anyone, there's no Scrooge McDuck-ian vault of gold coins that the VPs swim in or I would absolutely post pictures. I am more than willing to discuss this or answer any questions I can.
  6. Splitting this out into it's own thread, replying shortly.
  7. I attempted this once and failed in Renderworks. From what I understand, to accomplish this you need to be able to map two sides of the same poly (whatever the glass surface is made of) with different textures and have both faces occlude one another. This is possible in some rendering engines I have experimented with but I am fairly confident that we don't have that level of control in Vectorworks.
  8. I agree with you on principal, but this is not something I am going to be able to change. Once a version has gotten it's last service pack (I strongly believe this to be the case for 2018 barring any major OS changes in the very near future), there is nothing more that will ever be corrected in it.
  9. This just goes by the original post issue, any new issues that come in afterwards do not get rolled into the same topic otherwise we get endless threads.
  10. Yup, glow texture on a small extrude is the closest I've gotten. I tried a few times to get an actual functional laser effect that would bounce accurately off mirrors, but the lit fog needed to show the volumetric light beam only appears as a coherent beam before the first reflection, not to mention the significant increase in render time needed from using Lit Fog.
  11. I believe tech@vectorworks.net should still have links to the older dongle drivers, and if the dongles do light up on another machine a driver reinstall should fix it. Contact them directly and they should be able to get you sorted out.
  12. Nope, I just meant what you posted is already fine and your case is being handled right now.
  13. Apologies, this is possible on the AMD side but I only have standardized steps for Nvidia, AMD has a few different controller applications and the settings appear differently per card sometimes as well. I would check with the machine's manufacturer on how to ONLY use the dedicated card, especially in a multi monitor setup if that is even possible on that hardware, which is not always the case.
  14. Your machine looks to only have a Intel(R) UHD Graphics 620, which is below the minimum GPU specifications for Vectorworks: https://www.vectorworks.net/sysreq?version=2019
  15. Anyone encountering issues, please feel free to reply to this thread. We won't be publicly replying unless new information is needed, but we will either be handling your issue directly in the background or contacting your local distributors so that they can do so if you post here.
  16. Bridging will close two open edges, not two edges adjacent to hidden ones I think. If you delete the face instead of hiding it, you should then be able to bridge. If not, please post the object or a portion of it in an example file and I'll take a look.
  17. Disconnect one of those monitors from the display port on that machine, then download and install the following: https://www.geforce.com/drivers/results/142223 Reboot the machine afterwards, then launch and use Help > Check for Updates and make sure the very latest version has been installed (Should be SP6) and then close Vectorworks normally. If that fails, contact tech@vectorworks.net directly.
  18. If this only occurs when inserting a cable in that existing file or a set of existing files and not new blank files, get those over to tech@vectorworks.net directly and they can have a look.
  19. Reply back with the following from that machine please and I can take a look:
  20. I believe the very last phase was the solid subtract of the array of extrudes.
  21. That was created by first creating the overall shape with a Subdivision, then using duplicated extrusions spaced out in an array and subtracting them from the solid to give you multiple separate slices.
  22. It is already that. There are just leftover elements that reference 32 bit components and the Apple alert is being overzealous. You could run Vectorworks 2019 on a mac that had no 32 bit capability at all (though currently they all still allow it). OpenGL will be replaced before Apple sunsets it, very likely by Metal or Vulkan. Side note: When I say "OpenGL will be replaced" I mean it's technological guts, there will still be an OpenGL-like view in Vectorworks we aren't just removing it. We may call it Solid view or something more generic.
  23. Most likely you have either Snap to Grid or Snap to Angle enabled in the snapping palette. Disable these and you should be able to move/rotate objects freely. You can also hold down the ~ key to temporarily suspend all snapping of any kind.
  24. Same issue if you reboot? If you delete all heliodons in that file, then create a new class with no default attributes and create a new heliodon in that class, does the same pink color appear?


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...