Chris Fleming

Just found this. I don't seem to have the functionality you speak of. My cabinet objects act and appear as they always have in the past. What am I missing? I have interiorCad for VW2014, but not for VW2017 since InteriorCad is lagging very far behind Vectorworks on their upgrade cycle.

I have interiorCad XS in my office. Unfortunately, they've had a very difficult time keeping up with Vectorworks annual upgrade model. If you only wish to present with slab doors and drawers, I think it will work great for you. If you do mostly traditional style designs with 5 piece doors and drawer fronts (raised or flat panel doors), you're only choice is to stick with VW2014 and the 2014 version of InteriorCad. I LOVE the improvements that 2016, and now 2017 have brought to Vectorworks, however, Interiorcad has become so fundamentally imbedded into my workflow, that I stick with 2014. My worry is that by the time InteriorCad has a fully functional upgrade available, Vectorworks will have moved forward again. It's an ugly scenario. InteriorCad is a great product, they just need to be fully complete with their upgrade in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, InteriorCad is not perfect. It has it's quirks. You'll need to familiarize yourself with it's methods for sure. It's possible that truly realistic examples of the cabinetry being used isn't important enough to the bulk of their users. The flip side of all of this is that the only reason I went outside of the Vectorworks cabinet tools to begin with, was because the VW cabinet objects are not consistent. The top drawer of a standard base cabinet and a drawer stack are not the same size for instance. It is modifiable of course by converting to a group, breaking it down and resizing, but that is a lot of work to make the drawer heads the same height. Secondly, you could make the correction, and save as a symbol, but then you're locked into the size of the overall cabinet, unless you repeat the whole "convert to group", methods again. Now, if there is a fast, repeatable, and customizable way to resize drawer fronts that I'm not aware of, please enlighten me. I pay for service select, yet still hammer away on VW2014. I'd love to move forward. I've attached a quick render showing InteriorCad created cabinets stacked on top of the same cabinets created using Vectorworks Cabinets. I should point out that with the InteriorCad cabinets, I can use any outside door/drawer edges and panel styles (I use the actual ones my cabinet suppliers use). I've opted not to for this image, but the can have the drawer boxes shown as well. Looking at the cabinets on the bottom, you'll see the drawer head size issue I mentioned above. EDIT: My apologies to jmartinarch for hijacking his thread!

Just grasping here a bit, but try zooming way out. It could be that the viewport is off the sheet in an area beyond your display. Also, do a "select all" and check the OIP. Does it show that a viewport is selected? If so, zoom out. If there is nothing in the OIP after doing the select all, the problem lies elsewhere.

None. I was really curious about the OP's inference that VW2014 isn't compatible with El Capitan. I wasn't aware of any potential conflict, and haven't had any, so I was curious.

I have to ask regarding compatibility. I have Service Select, but I'm somewhat strapped to InteriorCad, which currently only performs (for what I need) at VW2014 levels. That being said, my OS is currently El Capitan (10.11.6) and I run 2014 without a hitch. I guess I didn't realize it wasn't supposed to be compatible?

Peter, YOU are the man! LOL! I knew it was an easy fix, but for the life of me I couldn't figure it out. I will now cruise into the weekend relaxed and ready to party! Thank you!

I'm sorry for posting this question, as I'm sure I remember seeing it before, and someone having a solution for it. However, I as unable to locate the thread using the search tools. So here goes. I use the "create section viewport" command to create my elevations. the viewport shows up on the appropriate sheet layer, then I'd normally begin doing my annotations. I use hidden line rendering for my elevations. When I enter annotation mode, multiple (hundreds?) of lines appear and everything slows way down. Zooming in and out for accurate dimensioning is a painfully slow process. Upon exiting the viewport, I find that it is now out of date. Once updated, it will become out of date by simply entering any of the viewport editing methods (Annotations, Crop, Design layer) even if nothing is done at all. It wasn't always like this. That's why I think it's a setting I've changed. I'm hoping it is. For the record, I'm using VWArchitect with Renderworks 2014 SP5. I have the 2015 version, but I use InteriorCad (limitedly) and am waiting on a reasonably functioning version for 2015. I've attached some pics. One with an up to date viewport. One showing what it looks like in the "Edit Annotation" phase, and one after exiting the edit mode. I hope someone can help!

I have to tell you that this is a tough one. Surely there are other users who've had to tackle this same problem. My solution would be to generate the section from my model. Then, I'd draw over the section where needed (to make it more accurate) within the "edit annotations" area in my viewport. You'd be able to generate the drawing you attached pretty easily I'd think. Yes, it would be drawing time outside of the modeling time, but you'd be saving all the time of drawing everything else. That may not be what you want to hear, but the point is that 2D and 3D modeling methodologies are not mutually exclusive. That's really the beauty of it all. It's a hybrid setup where you generate models and work on "real" structures, and present to clients with models and 2D drawing sets. You don't have to upgrade VW to try it either. Play around and see what it'll do for you. Then upgrade if you feel it's worth it to you. Then newest versions are much better, i.e. less frustrating, but you already have a good tool at your disposal. Cheers!

Let me point out right away that I'm not an architect. Now that that's out of the way, I guess I have a couple of questions. How "accurate" do you feel you need to be when representing an old building? If we're talking about 1/4" scale plans, some of the idiosyncrasies of older buildings may be a mute point. Not that you wouldn't make note of issues in construction notes, etc.. In a 3D model, do your walls need to lean in or be created out of square? Is the variance in thickness of the walls enough that you need to actually draw it? If walls are absolutely different thicknesses, it's easy enough to do that. I'm not sure I'd do it where the variance was unintentional however. Plaster walls are thicker at the bottom but I wouldn't draw that. However, if 4" thick wall ties or transitions into a 6" wall, I would. I hope that makes sense. I'm absolutely not minimizing the issue. It's just that I don't know if it's an issue or not. Since I work in residential remodeling, it hasn't been an issue. We always check walls for square, and when possible, I'll make that adjustment by creating walls from a polygon. I've never attempted to adjust the vertical orientation of my walls however (shown a lean). Typically, I'll use the smallest dimension brought back from the field measures, since I have to be sure that what we design will fit into the space. I haven't had the need to work with multiple stories, so I don't use that feature and I don't use layers in the "traditional" method of representing stories. As to windows, the tools have gotten much, MUCH better. You can vary and customize pretty much to your heart's content. Certainly enough to represent a concept, create the necessary before and after construction documents, and get take offs. You should definitely download the trial and see what you think. Just don't get frustrated, because, as is true with any high-end, complex, software package, knowing what everything does, and how to use it is key to your success. Cheers!

col37400, I'm getting into this conversation late, but wanted to give you my opinion of drawing in 2D v. modeling. I work at a small remodeling company and was also doing everything in 2D. I'd draw my plans and create my elevations, etc. all with polygons. I had done it that way for years in VWArch/RW, and became good at creating fast drawings. Fo me, the problem with a 2D methodology reared it's ugly head whenever there were changes, whether from the job site changing (being incorrectly measured in the field) or from a client change. It was also very time consuming to present multiple designs during the conceptual phase. Beginning with VW2011 (I'd used VW since v2006 I think), I decided to give modeling a try and invested in training. After doing 2 to 3 2-hour training sessions (using skype and screen sharing), I felt proficient enough to jump in. I've never looked back. In fact, I find it difficult to believe that I ever used the program as a 2D drafting system to begin with. I'm able to use layers to present different concepts within the same space. I get all of my elevations from section viewports. I use the time I've saved to do more with the overall presentation. I submit modeled drawings to my cabinet company to clarify details on custom pieces. I can demonstrate the differences in compound moldings to clients. The list goes on and on. By switching layer and class visibility on and off within the viewports, I'm able to copy and paste viewports to get multiple drawing very, very quickly. I think the key is to invest not only in the software (I'd go latest and greatest), but also in the training. You don't necessarily have to buy training, but I assure you that you'll consider it a great investment if you do. In my humble opinion, modeling in 3D and getting your 2D drawings from the model is by far quicker and easier. Good luck! EDIT: I should've included this info when I originally posted. My trainer was a fellow community member here, BCD. He was really able to break through the mental walls I'd built up against using VW in 3D. Very knowledgeable, and I recommend his training services whole heartedly. You can visit his profile here: Excellent Training

I don't like the way the textures are applied in Renderworks personally. My projects always use cabinetry, and the built-in cabinet objects are never textured properly within Vectorworks/Renderworks. If they are a solid color, theres no problem. However, a stained cabinet doesn't texture as it should. On a raised panel cabinet door, the vertical stiles and the panel, should have vertically oriented grain. The top and bottom rails have horizontal grain. The same goes for panel stile drawer fronts. There are exceptions of course, such as in the case of modern, European styled frameless cabinets with grain matched slab doors and drawer fronts. These are handled with no problem by VW. Because we work mostly with traditional styled cabinetry, I'd like to be able to correct the grain but cannot do so without first converting the cabinet object into a group, and then drilling down to each part. That is way too time consuming, AND you lose the ability to modify the cabinets from within the OIP. I'm not sure if an add-on product such as Interiorcad handles the graining properly or not. I'd love to render all my projects accurately, but currently use solid color textures for all cabinetry as a (weak) solution. I've attached a screen shot of three cabinets to illustrate my point. The two left cabinets are VW cabinet objects with textures applied. There is no way to re-map the textures, change how it is applied, or even scale it, with the cabinet objects. The cabinet to the far right was converted to a group. I then changed the stile, rail, and toe kick texture mapping and direction. If there is a way to map textures onto the Cabinet objects that I'm not aware of, someone please enlighten me.

I use Architect with Renderworks. I'm able to use the furniture models that come with that package, as well as create my own when needed. I model many of the props I use to make the room look lived in and real. I'd love to have the advanced lighting tools, but I'm able to do reasonably well with those that come with the package. I have been considering adding a rendering package such as C4D to help my renders go to the next level, but haven't been able to convince the "powers that be" here that it is necessary. I've attached two images from a small kitchen job to show the rendering I've achieved with Renderworks. I typically do these to present to a client before we've been contracted. We never give out any drawings of any kind before being contracted with a non-refundable deposit. These images are presented using an iPad in the client's home, and do a wonderful job of convincing the client that they've chosen the right firm.

I'm on a Mac here and I use two fonts primarily. I recently switched to Helvetica Neue Thin for all title block text. I like it because it has an up to date look but is tried and true. It's hard to go wrong with Helvetica. For all drawing labeling and dimensions, I use Graphite Light ATT. It looks good on a set of prints, but does not try to be "hand written". Fonts are a very personal choice, so I'm not sure there's a correct answer. For what it's worth, I rarely use more than a couple of fonts in my drawings. I've seen prints with 4 or 5 different fonts, and I'm not a fan. To me, it makes the drawing seem cluttered. There's enough in the drawing already without letting my fonts add to the mess. That's just my opinion however. Hope this helps.

Thanks for the input guys.

I wasn't sure where to put this, so I stuck it into "General". If it would be better elsewhere, then the mods should feel free to move it. I was wondering how I would go about creating booth seating as represented in the attached images. Specifically, in regard to rendering. How difficult is it to create the tucked and pleated fabric backs? Making the wood parts and such is a snap. Getting a realistic representation to show potential clients the designers "vision" is what I'm after. Of course, once that's done, I'd like to be able to get a materials takeoff for the shop as well. Fabric needed (Sq. yards), foam cushions needed, Veneered plywoods, etc. That should be doable in a BIM enviroment, right? Sorry if this is basic stuff. It is anything but basic to me! Thanks!

Ahhh! I WAS missing the point. Michael my symbol definition also inserts as a group, but the value of retaining the symbol definition was lost on me. Being able to simply modify the symbol, would allow me to change ALL moldings, project wide, rather than having edit each individual EAP profile. I want it. I want it yesterday! LOL!

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I use symbols as profiles all the time. I've saved my molding profiles as 2D symbols, with the "convert to group" option selected. Works like a charm. Granted, I still have to edit the profile to set the insertion point, but there's no need edit the symbol and copy and paste.

Have you seen this from the knowledgebase? http://kbase.vectorworks.net/questions/457/Custom+Title+Block This was one of the most difficult things for me to do. Mostly because of clarity of the documentation. Once I had it done however, I was glad that I did.

Thanks bcd and Gytis. bcd, I was afraid that was the answer, in terms of the correct application of textures, but I was pretty sure it was. I've taken to "white card" modeling our projects mostly. It's not a bad alternative, especially during the design phase. I'm always surprised (though I shouldn't be) when a client is looking at a rendered concept of a major remodel, and they focus on the colors. "I don't like that finish on the cabinets" or "do I have to do the tile pattern like that?". LOL! White card puts those things out of their minds! Gytis, I have looked at Interiorcad. I have come close to pulling the trigger on a few occasions, but have yet to do so. It looks like it is exactly what we need.

Since we do a lot of interior remodeling, I use the VW PIO cabinets for the bulk of my work, modifying as needed, converting to group, etc. when highly specialized units are needed. Unless I'm missing something, VW renderworks does a poor job of applying textures to the cabinet PIO's. Re-mapping textures on those objects is not allowed by the program. Grain direction is pretty much always wrong. Either its all horizontal or all vertical. The only way I've found to correct it is to convert each cabinet to a group, then drill down to the individual pieces, correcting texture mapping along the way. This is not a productive way IMO. WAY too much time needs to spent on each item. If there is a better way, or I'm making a fundamental mistake, please, someone, let me know.

CRSA, you probably figured it out by now, but just in case: Open Font book and select the font. You can select the entire font family, or any member of the family. Once selected, go to the file menu and select validate Font. It's just that easy. If a problem exists, this should find it.

You could edit the 3-D portion of the sconce to reflect what you'd like, then import the symbol into a favorites file. That way it'll be available any time you work. You can also go into the door and window tool preferences and set up everything the way you like it. Once that is done, simply save the file as a template. Every time you start a new file, use your template, and all your door and windows will come in with your base standards. You'll only need to adjust the size.

I think I've looked everywhere, but can't seem to find a place to adjust the height of the handles placed on house doors. VW puts them in at 42" high. A typical pre-hung door that I'm familiar with puts them at 36" from bottom door edge. Is there a way to adjust this? Seems odd to be able to adjust knobs and pulls on cabinetry objects but not on door objects. EDIT: I ended up editing the 3D portion of the symbol and moving it down 6". This worked. At first, this seemed counter intuitive to me, but it is much better to lower the handles universally in the project than on a door by door basis. So I guess its the best way.

I appreciate the input Grant. I haven't been able to justify the cost (of C4D) or the learning curve of external rendering software. Especially once the economy tanked back in '07. Now however, I feel as you do. That the ability to demonstrate the finished "feel" of the project will help solidify the client's confidence in us. Remodeling projects are intangible, so anything I can do to give my client the finished fit and feel PRIOR to the start of the actual project would be an excellent tool. I'm still concerned with the amount of work necessary to achieve that look however. BTW, your work looks very nice as well!

I'm not sure if this is a valid subject for discussion or not, but I'll put it out there anyway. I do not use an external rendering program (C4D, etc.), although I've considered playing around with blender because it's free. Anyway, I do like to watch tutorial videos of C4D, Blender, etc. In at least one video, the tutor mentioned creating an "instance" from light objects, so that the rendering software only has to calculate for the original light object, and does not have to calculate for multiple lights. The "instance" can then be duplicated in the modeled room to create additional light. This sounds much like symbols in VW. One instance of a symbol rather than multiple complicated items to be calculated. So my question is this: Can we save a light as a symbol (I'm guessing we can), and if so, will using a light symbol save on rendering time over having multiple light objects in the file?