Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by arquitextonica

  1. Hello. We are diving deep in the use of data visualizations. But there are two main weakpoints/hurdles that make their use not-so-nice. 1. The option to completely hide objects. It was already posted here as wish. 2. The implementation of clean lists of referenced items. Let me elaborate. We strongly use referenced files, they have a coherent layer, material, assets, etc. structure as the host file BUT when we list the data-fields for data visualization, there are SEVERAL problems. a. Fields can not be searched for or even alphabetically ordered... with >100 Layers, the scrolling is painstaking. b. Fields are "doubled". We made the layer structure coherent, so we want the "Wall" layer to be overwritten for all the hosted files as well as for the host file... imagine we have 3 files + host and 100 layers... that is a nightmare... A super addition would be if we could list "only" a certain set of data-fields corresponding to a certain filter... similar to what is already possible in the layers and design-layer palettes... Thx in advance and UPVOTE if you like! 😍
  2. Sadly I can not share the file as it has a lot of propietary knowledge that would take ages to strip away. Here you can see the rendering modes in the german version. I compared them to the USA one and I surprisingly found that there are more. https://vectorworks-hilfe.computerworks.eu/2022/Vectorworks-Hilfe/Rendern_Drucken/Vectorworks_2144-.htm?rhhlterm=darstellungsarten darstellungsart&rhsearch=darstellungsart But basically the problem can be understood in that when I choose the "2d Plan" view (named identically), the color filling I receive is that of the asset-slab, not that of the components as in any other rendering mode...
  3. Another attempt... top left is the 2D-Plan. Though it is configured on the level of detail-high, it shows the complete floor fill-colour. Bottom left is the volume model and displays the material textures of the upper components of the floor assets. Right is "surfaces and edges" (don't know if it is the right english term) and shows the filling of the material for the correct upper components of the floor assets. In my opinion, a detailed groundfloor, should show a mix of top-left and right, so complete walls but the solid colour fillings of the upper components. Anyone that can point me in a solution/direction. Thanks in advance to all!
  4. Anyone? The problem seems really a thing of basic VW philosophy...
  5. Hi All! I'm trying to re-understand and complexify our use of the Assets/Layers/Representation depths, and I'm coming to some problems. Hope I can be clear. Sorry if the english-terms are not right, I'm working with the german version and I'll try to be clear. Low level section and plan are OK (color is by layer of the "floor" resource, not of the components) the "rendered plan" is not as expected. I get the textures of the components' materials. Medium/high level section is ok, but I'd expect to see the colors of the components' layers in the 2D plan, as I'm seeing the textures of the components' materials in the render. I guess no difference should be expected between medium and high. It would be great to have this possibility also... Thanks in advance for your comments and help!
  6. The material IFC dependencies were not known to me, but are a good goal to aim to. My complaint ist as follows: 1. that I can not override something. There should not be a user-constraint in any case, even less in terms of information mapping. There are many other cases in which assignments can be overriden and that the material name can not be is an incoherence. 2. "Material Name" in vectorworks is an "asset" name, it can/should/does respond to internal office naming conventions, and THEREFORE should be suitable to be mapped (as i.e. is the case of the layers structure). Therefore I tried to address the "conventional-at-the-construction-site" naming in the "description" field.
  7. Hi @Mihail Rizov... I don't understand your point. It is not acknowledging the process as a problem. The thing is I can not override the Material properties of a "material enabled" object. Though I can extract the data (material descriptions of each layer) and map it elsewere. If the material pset is "locked" and only gets the asset-name, I find it cumbersome and problematic because the asset naming is an internal convention and should not be locked to a property that is indeed visible in the IFC output.
  8. I sometimes get wall problems, with discrepancies between settings and results. "Resetting" the wall usually does the trick.
  9. Anyone? I had the feeling this could be a critical issue...
  10. Test_MaterialBeschreibungen.ifcTest_MaterialBeschreibungen_Schalen.ifcTest_MaterialBeschreibungen.vwxThe files are from the german version, but show the problematic. I build the walls and slabs with "layers" and these have their proper material. Materials have in turn a description. I map the description into a databank, and assign this databank to the walls and/or slabs. In turn I map the material description to the IFC Material-name property of the corresponding objects, using the datamanager. I select the objects and when I go to "data/material" the description appears in VW as correctly assigned. Thing is that when I export the IFC 2x3 with or without element-decomposition, the name of the material is NOT the material description (Beschreibungñ in the images) BUT the original material name from the "asset". I made some other silly attempts like mapping a "concatenation" of these descriptions into the element description and it DOES work, so the problem seems to be that the IFC mapping of the asset-name can not be overridden by the data manager. t
  11. Hi Everyone! I´m trying to map the material description property of our material resources into the IFC Material field. The problem is that whatever I do, I only get the "Resource name" into the IFC Field. I know the expression I´m using "works" because I mapped the material description into the IFC Tag field and it got what I wanted, but I don't see why I can overwrite the Material field. Using the resuource name is a no-go, because it has our internal coding and this is not suitable for all the other project agents. Any help would be really appreciated.
  12. I'd very much recover this post. We are working with referenced files and the coordination of this critical data is really painstaiking. We have discovered also that, though we have a coordinated class and layer naming strategy, when we try to use data-visualization, the classes are named "per file" and can NOT be alphabetically ordered (that would have made everything easier). The coordination of each minute change is also painstainking as we have to do it humanly-manually... This is no file-federation.
  13. Was just a little "offtopic excursion" 😁 I hope VW gets a half-decent DWG exporter anytime soon... I sincerely don't know how other colleagues handle this problem. For us is a real pain...
  14. The DWG export is a longstanding issue and is IMHO not being properly addressed... I´m really eager to see what and if the announced improvements are in 2023.
  15. I´m facing once again VERY big problems with the DWG export. I insert an image as reference and instance it several times in design layers. When I export the layer as DWG, not only will VW capriciously rename the image file (actually producing a new image with different quality) but it also generates a new and different image for each of the instances I have placed in the layer... (behaviour that is also happening when I have several layouted viewports of the same design layer) This is plain wrong. It is illogical and cumbersome. Would anyone provide some insight? I know DWG is not an open format and also not the native file format for VW, but it IS and will remain an industry standard for many years and we don't have a trustworthy way of providing our colleagues with information in this format... Thanks in advance, and please forgive me if I'm sound angry... but this problem is really a pain in the CAD...
  16. This would produce naming conflicts, aber by chance, I have found in Extras in the design layer manager, there is an option to bulk send objects to a different design layer. That would-should solve the problem swiftly...
  17. Hello! I´ve been working with two seemingly big files I referenced into a layout file. Now the size and updating of the files is becomming a problem and we would like to merge both files into a single one... The thing is that when I erase the reference, the design layers are imported with a -1 at the end, so they don´t collide with the existing... this is solvable but a real pain to do... Is there a way to actually merge the files like other programs do? Thanks in advance!
  18. Hi All. I´m facing huge difficulties at the time of exporting the DWGs. I managed to achieve a seemingly good result an the design layouts looked ok BUT when I double clicked on a window to edit the contents I noticed the following: I had a single window and its visible contents corresponded to 2 design layers which were exported as blocks. I think this is not right, but a workaround the absence of design layers in CAD. So far ok. I made a new window of the same design layers and its content got unwillingly duplicated. Now I get 2 different blocks (different names, so NOT instances) for each design layer and each is placed in a different layer so that they can be differentially layouted... Even crazier is that when I duplicated the first window, just for the sake of checking, though they are actually independent objects in vectorworks, and "should" have produced a third copy of the content blocks, it was actually the same content as the firs... I CAN´T FOLLOW THIS INTERNAL LOGIC... Could any of you explain to me how do you produce usable, clean, professional DWGs that can be shared with project partners without being ashamed?
  19. Hi All! I'm currently working with two files referenced inside a third. The design layer AND classes structure is coordinated between the three so that we can model and design at will. Thing is that we are using the option for the referenced viewports to use the "host" classes visibilities, but each referenced file is split into several viewports each placed on the corresponding design layer so that when we layout in the host file, we see what we want... Thing is that I'd like to "collapse" the two guest files into a single one, and "try" the project sharing way instead of the referencing and here comes my problem. When I "break" the reference and tell VW to import the file, the design layers are imported with a new-name instead of importing the objects inside the existing design layers (which would have been just logic for me)... So... is there a way in which I can "paste" together two different models of two different buildings that have the same design-layers, floors, reference levels, etc. and MAINTAIN all this very important information structures? Thanks all in advance!!!
  20. Hi everyone! I´m working on some alternative visualizations for a WIP project. The thing is I´d like to work on these alternatives over data-visualizations or class-visualizations but I can´t seem to manage it. I have the walls configured with the components. Each component has a different class and material assigned to it. The classes and materials do NOT necessarily correspon to each other... Is there a way to make this override work over the host file so that the different references files remain unscathed? Thanks in advance!!
  21. Thanks for the insight. The thing is that I believe IT is well intentioned, but not used to our way of working. Several hundreds of Mbs files that have to be constantly updated. That works on each location superb because the local servers are top class and very well managed, but if one of the locations as to access the other... they are hundreds of kilometers apart... one of them would suffer.
  22. Hi All. We are working over two different locations on a project sharing file. Thing is that our IT has setup a server on each location and the servers are "synchronized" with each other. That means that there are "times" in which the VWXP files can be different as the colleagues working are doing it over different "phisical instances" of the files. (For stability both servers have the same disk letter and so on). This has already produced "writing rights conflicts" in which an admin was told NOT to have writing rights over the file to send the changes. The solution could be to work on a "one-drive-locally-saved" VWXP file... this synchronisation would be handled through one-drive and not our servers, and though I am sure it will lead to conflicts, it should be more stable, right? What would be your solution otherwise? Thanks in advance!!!
  • Create New...