Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

70 Excellent

1 Follower

About bc

  • Rank
    1000 Club

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Designer, Woodworker
  • Homepage
  • Hobbies
    architecture,woodworking, art
  • Location
    Any Montana users out there?

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks everyone, I fixed it. I moved my Design Layer back down to 0 and then moved the DTM up 1300 ft. Then updated. Now the contour labels are correct. I appreciate all the help. Bradley
  2. That's what I thought. They don't change.
  3. I think you've nailed it down for me Boh. I created the DTM @ 0'=0" and it only has 80' of elevation changes. I then moved it up 1,300 ft with the move command. Still reads original contour markers. So I guess I should move the dtm back down to 0 by moving the DL, enter the edit site data and move all the data points up to where they should be? I like the fact that I can trim the bottom off so I won't be left with a towering DTM. Or should I just start over and create the DTM anew? Thanks for your help!
  4. It was originally created @ 0'-0" on it's design layer. It has been moved in the z direction by virtue of moving the design layer it resides on.
  5. All the contours were generated with stake objects set to the elevations as provided by surveyor.
  6. How can I get my contour labels on my Site Model to read correctly? The 70'-0" contour should read 1,420 ft. The 70 ft label is as if it were referencing the bottom most contour data. I should add that the 70 ft contour does reside @ 1,420 ft elevation. Thanks
  7. All right! Thanks for all that everyone. I'll give it a go and try both methods.
  8. This is pretty annoying. Darn near impossible for me to select site model modifiers on a site model...even in wire frame. The model always takes priority. What is the best way to select site modifiers on a site model? Thank you. bc
  9. Also Grid Bubbles need to show up on elevation viewports as annotations like section markers in plan....be able to choose which block shows up so conflicts don't arise..
  10. @Amorphous - Julian I can't get this to open in 2018 or 2019. Says file is too old or corrupt, etc. What is your recommended proceedure for utilization of this script? Thanks alot! bc OK So I copied the script into my scripts palette and when I run it is says: Not privy to scripting, I don't know where to go from here. Any help? NOW I HAVE IT WORKING. I failed to copy the absolute entire portion of the script from the file. THANKS JULIAN!!!
  11. No joy, rDesign. @Christiaan and others. I anticipate my wish to be fruitless, but my question still begs an answer: Why can't VW handle this? Certainly there must be some nightmare coding issue? It would be somewhat forgivable then, but to think that after all this time, this little thing (and others) can't get attention is perverse. If it was a coding issue, why utilize a code that creates such an issue? So someone initially says, "We can't texture doors correctly with this code but that is fine because we CAN make extrudes and walls and model solids that emulate M.C. Escher. " I know Matt Panzer and a few others check in occasionally and kudos for that morsel but now that we're back to a community board left to fend for itself? It's disheartening. Maybe if I knew my annoyance would lessen. So to anyone in VW land, if you happen to be listening, I am asking: Why can't VW handle this?
  12. I know, I know, been asked for many many. OK see my example below please. I have created a custom door leaf out of generic solids within the symbol used for my custom door. Note that on the left, when I am inside the symbol, the texture maps correctly (or the way I want them to be) but once I exit, it's the same old, same old, same old. I mean, seriously? VW doors have been mapping this way for freakin' ever! So my question is: Why can't VW handle this? I WISH it could. It's one of those embarrassing things that prevent serious referrals. It can do a huge amount of gigantic stuff but not this tiddlywinks? So there really isn't a parametric VectorWorksAround for this one? Thank you. bc
  13. bc


    Thanks Peter, No tar and feathers from me. This is as I suspected....although I don't know that this method saves any work if one is using standard Velux Skylights, as using them allows one to not have to bother determining the actual hole for any given slope as the insertion process does that automatically. I can see using it if one were to have some kind of custom built skylight. Otherwise I think it's six-of-one....... I would NEVER use the the symbol to create any sort of dormer. Dormers need to be modeled IMHO.
  14. bc


    @alan Thanks for your video. I am using Velux symbols and had an insertion problem prior to restarting. All is well now. @CipesDesign Peter, could you elaborate a bit as to the benefits of your method? Or why you prefer it? I insert a skylight into the roof and always have to reposition it. That takes a bit of time. But so does creating a roof hole. It just seems like it's the same amount of work. Is it the resulting section view you're after? Thanks
  15. bc


    Sorry for the rant. Had to restart. Although it DID work on all the others......


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...