Spencer

August 23, 2004

I saw nothing in the Vectorworks 11 release notes which suggests they were able to address these issues yet. At the moment, I do not think vectorworks is a viable platform for creating dimensioned 2D drawings from 3D models with non-rectilinear curves (round holes and curved surfaces).

It is however a fine 3D modeling package.

[ 08-22-2004, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Spencer ]

June 28, 2004

You can translate from Claris Cad to IGES or DXF with Claris Graphics Translator. The program will do a batch translate, so you can give it a whole mess of files before you go to bed. They will be done in the morning. I takes about 20 to 60 seconds per moderately complex file.

Once translated, any program that reads DXF or IGES can open the files. The DXF is Autocad rev 12.

Claris Graphics Translator was sold by Claris when Claris Cad was still supported. There are people out there who have it.

May 21, 2004

I am using Mac OS 9.2.2 Netscape 7.02 and IE 5.0

The following response from CAD Register tech support clarifies their position regarding MACs.

I do not know what special steps they must take to block Macs from reading their web pages and downloading their files. But they are quite effective.

quote:

Hello Spencer,

Thank you for your interest in the Thomas Industrial Network's CADRegister!

I have verified with tech support that MAC workstations are not compatible

and/or supported on the CADRegister website at this time.

The CADRegister website and software that Thomas Register supports, were

designed for use by PC's only. The Thomas Register Tech Support area is

continually monitoring the number of PC and/or MAC CAD users however, and is

always looking to improve the application's compatibility with the user

community.

Thank you for taking the time to submit your issue to the Thomas Register

Support Desk. Your issue with MAC usage and CADRegister has been noted and

routed to the development area for their records.

Please contact the Thomas Register Support Desk if you have any additional

questions, or require further assistance with our products.

Sincerely,

Cindy Greenleaf

May 19, 2004

Ron,

I've had no success with Netscape 7.0.2. I can see 3D drawings but no download button with IE 5.0.

I sent site feedback. You should send a message too.

May 11, 2004

Nuts, and I was so excited to see some activity in Mechanical.

April 14, 2004

Lofting is in the 3D powerpac, standard in 9.x and up. You will have to upgrade.

April 13, 2004

Tom,

Thank you. Your response is very welcome. I will wait eagerly and patiently. Vectorworks has the opportunity to be the only moderate cost good solution in the Mac mechanical design market. That should include a health number of industrial designers.

Regarding the mechanical origins of MiniCad, I suspect it was a just bit of marketing puffery. Hey, it got me to buy.

In the meantime, let's all figure out how to best use what we have. It's no small thing.

Spencer

April 11, 2004

Chris

I am doing instrument design, which is generally an assembly of machined parts and purchased components. Similar requirements to designing and detailing an automobile engine. Lots of parts, many non orthoganal views.

I was once told by a vectorworks marketing person that Minicad (vectorworks' predecessor) was originally created by the company's founder primarily for mechanical engineering. They claimed that architectual interest has pulled it in that direction.

Frankly, I think this is fantasy, as there is no hint of satisfying mechanical detailing needs in the 3D to 2D projection or conversion area. Features and snap points (hole and curve centers and edges) are lost, parametric constraints are lost, so there is not ability to demension a part.

I will regretfully abandon Vectorworks pretty soon if this problem isn't addressed.

Spencer

April 9, 2004

You may like to glance at the discussion about huge text in title blocks in the mechanical discussion group. It may relate.

April 8, 2004

Tom,

I believe the boarder and title block scale is more related to the paper size of different sheets than the scale on the layers visible on that sheet. The problem involves having different boarder scales when you specify different paper sizes for various sheets. I am using the term "sheets" to be synonomous with "drawing." Also, I am assuming a 3D asssembly on one layer, and several other layers with 2D details of the various parts in the assy. Complex parts with multiple views may need larger sheets regardless of the scale.

The scaling function works very well in the boarder object info box. The problem, as you have stated, is that it scales the library symbol not an instance of the symbol on a particular layer of the drawing.

In my opinion the most effective solution is a combination of option 1 and 2. That is allow me to create a format layer for each paper size I am going to use. Permit a boarder and title block of the appropriate scale on each format layer (option 2) so I can make that layer visible along with any drawing layers using that paper size (option 1.)

An advantage of this approach is I only have to fill in the common title block data (my name, the file name) once for each sheet size, on the format layers. The drawing specific info (title, number, rev etc.) can go on each drawing specific layer. I can still use multiple layers per detail drawing and even mix scales on a drawing with layers of different scales being visible.

The last question this raises, can a sheet remember the paper size associated with it, like documents remember page setup? Sounds like a job for vectorscript.

BTW, this is the drawing strategy discussion I was looking for about a month ago. If this discussion is valuable to others, I hope it doesn't go unnoticed buried down here at response # 7

Spencer

April 6, 2004

Tom,

Thanks for the instructions on how to correct an errant title block scale. They are clear and helpful.

You are correct in assuming I created a title block in a 1:2 layer. Following your suggestion of creating it in a 1:1 layer and then transfering a copy (select a new layer in the object info palette) of the boarder and title block to a different 1:2 layer maintains the proper scale relationship between the boarder and title block components. It also resizes properly in the 1:2 layer if you click "fit to page."

But, if you return to the 1:1 layer to view the original boarder and title block created properly at 1:1, it is now messed up. The title, tolerance and projection blocks are the wrong scale and overlap one another. Redraw fixes the overlap, but not the scale problem. I assume if I follow the instuctions of the previous post, I can fix the 1:1 layer's title block but will mess up the 1:2 layer's title block.

I still conclude that a bug prevents having scaled boarders and title blocks on layers of different scales at the same time. Perhpas you could have two separate symbols at two different scales. But that is inconsistent with the concept of using symbols.

I believe the solution you gave earlier in the post of 1-16-2004 is still the best answer.

[ 04-05-2004, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Spencer ]

April 3, 2004

Here's a solution (work around) to the title block scaling problem.

First, I'm using Vectorworks 10.5.1 on OS 9.2.2

In a previous post (1-16-04) AnaisR says the problem doesn't happen with ASME title blocks. I find it does.

If you create a title block in a 1:1 layer all is fine. Then create a title block in a 1:2 layer. The block does not scale with the border and thus is twice as big.

If you delete it, cycle back to the 1:1 layer and again to the 1:2 layer, it will grow by 2 again.

In the previous post (1-16-04) we learned to put the title block on a separate 1:1 layer. If you never created a title block on a 1:2 layer the problem does not appear, and you can follow this advice.

However, what if you make the mistake after putting months of effort into a multi-layered drawing? How do you salvage your efforts and get back to a nornal sized block?

Copying the design to a new file is impractical if you can not afford to lose your linked layers (they won't copy.)

A solution: Apparently the title block grows (does not scale) when going from 1:1 to 1:2, but does not shrink again when returning to 1:1. So it becomes too big at 1:1. Title blocks which were OK when you made them are now huge. Cycle between 1:1 and 1:2 layers creating blocks several times trying to get it to work and you can ratchet up to 120 ft wide title blocks.

However, if you go from 1:1 to 1x2 (enlarge) the current huge title block size shrinks by a factor of 2. So measure that title block and make new layer with the appropriate enlargement factor and create a title block in that layer to restore it back to the proper size.

You can use this trick to make smaller title blocks if you like.

BTW, this will recover from the problem but not eliminate it. Title blocks created in a 1:2 layer will also shrink when you create the new smaller one. You can not "fix" the one in the 1:2 layer without messing up the other ones.

[Also, make sure you work with the title, tolerance and projection blocks together. If some layers have one and not the other the scales will get out of synch, some huge, some small.]

The proper way to handle title blocks is described in the previously cited post. Now you have a way to recover so you can implement it after you screw up.

March 30, 2004

When I create a drawing boarder in a particular file the title block text is huge, (500 in. or more) It doesn't happen in new files. But it happens in this file on new layers.

The layer scales are 1:1 and 1:2. Any idea how I can fix this file? It holds months worth of effort.

[ 03-30-2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Spencer ]

March 29, 2004

A follow up on the first post under this topic regarding the last paragraph.

"Now lets detail the second part. Make a new layer, link the part, etc. Dimensions automatically fall into the same class as the dimensions for part 1."

It's not a problem!

If you create a layer for each detail/dimensioned part in an assembly and the dimension it, only that part's dimensions are visible in that detail layer. You have to remember to make the other layers invisible.

One problem solved.

March 23, 2004

Need reference points (snap points, handles) on 3D features to which we can dimension. For example, centers and edges of extrusions, especially when they create holes after subtraction from solids.

If the original 2D profile had a reference point, the 3D part it creates should retain that reference point or axis after extrusion.

March 19, 2004

3D modelling is an excellent tool for mechanical design and Vectorworks has become quite effective for that purpose. However, support for creating detail drawings is lacking.

Consider a multi part assembly. Place each part in a different class so you can design and model them as part of the asssembly.

To detail individual parts for fabrication drawings you can activate one class at a time, link each part to separate detail layer, copy and rotate it several times to create top front and side views. Convert or copy to lines with hidden line view or dash hidden line view as required.

Now add dimensions. This is where it fails.

The extruded circles in 3D models have few useful snap points so you can not dimension to these features accurately. You can't dimension to holes (extrude circles subtracted from a block) if they have been rotated. You can't make diametrical dimensions on cylinders or holes or locate the centers.

Convert to lines turns curves to a series of small line segments. It may look like the original 2D, but there are no centers, center left, center top, etc. snaps to dimension to. The many line segments make finding the diameter and location of a hole very difficult.

Here's my work around: anyone have a better idea?

Place a 3D locus on any cylidical feature you want to find later. Make sure the locus stays with the cylinder if you rotate it or move it. If you carry the locus to the final linked layer you will have a center location for your feature. You can draw a 2D circle of the proper diameter on top of the extruded projection in a normal view (perpendicular to the cylinder axis.) This provides a reference for diametric dimensions. whew!

Now lets detail the second part. Make a new layer, link the part, etc. Dimensions automatically fall into the same class as the dimensions for part 1.

How do you dimension parts 2 through n separately, so you can print dimensioned detailed multi viewed layers of parts 1 to part n?

Ok, it's someone elses turn to pick up this lesson.

March 13, 2004

Amazing,

I just opened the tech board for the specific purpose of finding out if I could move the print area around my drawing. I couldn't find it in the VW docs. Rather than search I decided to browse.

This was the first post I looked at! Katie, What a fine resource.

February 21, 2004

I just upgraded to 10.5.1. There appears to be something wrong with working planes. If I change views to front the i and j axis appear reversed. (i up). If I click look at working plane the view flips to i on the right. Look at working plane flips it when in Top/Plan view. [Confused]

If I try to rotate working plane on z axis from the view menu, the working plane disappear when I click on look at working planes. Control handles work intermitently.

It didn't work this way on 10.5.0

September 10, 2003

Blend edge on a cylindar ?4 x 5 or ?300 x 500,works in V10.1 on a Mac without selecting tangent edges. [Confused]

[ 09-09-2003, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Spencer ]

August 15, 2003

I have been experiencing similar difficulties. I don't have anything specific to add now, but I wouldn't want BaRa's to be a lone voice.

The new tools are a great addition and much appreciated. Improvements are critical to my success.

Best regards,

Spencer

August 5, 2003

For those of you who saw BaRa's movie of lofting a spoon, you will recall he blended the edges of the spoon after shelling a surface to a thickness. This rounded the thick edge successfully.

When I sectioned the spoon in half before blending I could no longer blend the same edges. It appears to have problems with corners.

Incidentally, sectioning after the edges were blended doesn't work. It won't section the after the blend. Catch-22?

Maybe this goes into the bug list.

July 31, 2003

Hey, that's fantastic. Thanks. It's almost what I was doing but with one important difference. You don't use the elipse (you didn't even draw it) to define the curved surface. That avoids the discontinuities.

I will first draw the elipse to define where the end points of the ribs should be to get the final shape I want. But I won't include the elipse in the selection when I make the surface. That should give me just what I need.

To those of you who asked for more 3D training or tutorials. I think I just found a source of custom tutorials right here. Let's all do more of this. It will help all of us.

Spencer

July 31, 2003

I'm trying to draw the bowl of a spoon. Suggestions on strategy appreciated.

Here's what I tried.

Elipse converted to nurbs to define the plan view. Two nurbs profiles in x and y planes to define the shape of the bowl from side and end view. They go form side edge to side edge and tip to back of bowl. Surface from curves doesn't work until you split the nurbs elipse into 4 pieces to make all open nurbs curves.

This nearly works. But when I shell it to get thickness, the edges are tilted and discontinuities occur at the split points.

Any better ideas?

July 31, 2003

Here's how I solve the problem.

1. Extrude a rectangle longer than needed.

2. Draw another rectangle larger than first.

3. Turn 2nd one into surface.

4. Rotate working plane 45? about Z axis.

5. 3D Rotate 2nd rectangle 45? about i axis.

6. Set z height to desired height at center point of 1st extrude.

7. Section extrude with tilted surface.

8. Reversed section to keep bottom half.

That leaves a rectanglular extrude with a slanted top across with opposite corners high and low.

Whew, it didn't take long but there's got to be a better way.

[ 07-30-2003, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Spencer ]

February 6, 2003

Answers!

Some experimenting cleared up some of the questions.

1. The third point defining a working plane does not have to be perpendicular to the first line. It sets the orientation of the plane around the axis of the first line, thus only has to lie in the plane.

So with cylinder end you can choose two sides of the diameter and the top of the circle. Click on "view the working plane" and move it to the center of the cylider end if desired.

For the side of a cylinder, click on the ends along one side and an opposite point on one end to place a plane through the centerline. Then 3D move the plane 1 radius to lay in on the side of the cylinder through the third point.

By the way, this exercise was only interesting if the cylinder had been rotated off the XYZ axis in the first place. But that's just what I'm dealing with.

2. Still looking for rules about when working planes move when switching views.

[ 02-05-2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Spencer ]

Profiles

Forums

Events

Articles

Marionette

Store

Posts posted by Spencer