Petri

How do you do that?

Actually, DWorks is obviously able to edit 254 colours... At least in Europe, 256-2=254. However, this is indeed interesting. With MacOS you have always (well, at least almost always - I can't recall MC 3 or 4 in this respect) been able to edit 254 colours. The operating-systematically challenged users have had a more limited choice even in this respect.

As the peripatetic, yet benevolent, CAD-Nazi, I hate to say this: it looks like an user error. EDIT Katie is on the ball. One may, however, have made 3 copies of the data. Please, please, please: have Offset Duplication ON! There's absolutely nothing to lose, everything to win! Including not being required to pay my trouble-shooting fees which include 4-star accommodation and travel in Business Class; hourly rates, calculated for any commencing 15 minutes, apply from the moment I leave home until I've returned; tally including any discussions or correspondende, at my discretion. The rate is double for time not between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays, triple for weekends, quadruple for Sundays, in an accumulative fashion. So, when I'm sitting on the plane on a Sunday evening, deleting your quadruplicates could easily cost you a few thousand euros per hour plus expenses.

Yes, but have you checked what the 3D grid setting is?

Good thinking, Ionwman! I've both repaired permissions and checked them on folder basis. However, I have - repeatedly - seen $INCLUDE scripts getting incorporated when duplicating a PIO, with all line-feeds and carriage-returns disappearing. --- Does anyone under 40 know what a carriage return actually means?

I won't even try to use any aspect of the dreadful Plant Tool that just gets worse and worse. I'm just interpreting the users' views. If someone can't do it, it is a problem with the tool, not with the user.

... as I suggested in message #91193.

Mr Ford? Oh, hey, it's Bob! May I call you Henry, Henry? Look, Henry - I just bought this Edsel a little while ago... Uh-huh, yeah, it's going just fine. But hey listen: I tanked it with this new Rocket Fuel and I think it's busted. So, having driven Fords since the Model-T... uh-huh, a great car, a truly great set of wheels... Henry, I think you'd make a great service to the community as a whole if you'd - yes, I know you care about the community, yeah - if you'd give me a new engine that could use Rocket Fuel. What? No, I won't buy a new model until it is updated. I never buy first year models - you know, there are always all these problems that I'd rather get sorted out by others. What? No, it'd be greatly appreciated... Hey, we are your loyal cust... Beep beep beep beep beep

What? Les Pays-Bas, nul points above zero? Sunrise, sunset, sunrise, sunset, swiftly flow the days. They do, indeed: Tevye knew nothing, although he was not even from Barcelona. Here are the hours of the Helsinki jury: Sunrise today: 8:08 Sunset today: 16:00

Bad news. Another PIO, another go. This time the script wasn't nuked, but the parameters were. Now, I was so overjoyed with even partial success that I did not make full notes or test at every step, but it goes like this: The duplicate actually WAS created. It was visible in the Finder. It had parameters. (Before, the duplicate was visible only in the PIO editor just after making it, but not in the Finder nor after closing the editor. If it was, then there were no parameters and no script.) Glory be, said I and played the Secret Chord (CAPS LOCK etc) and was - for the first time ever in VW 2008 - able to encrypt a PIO. The Lord was not pleased, though. The process had totally destroyed the PIO. I saw the parameters, but each and every one was listed as Missing In Action in the error report. The unencrypted version continued to work. Right, said I, this can't be right. So I repeated the entire process, except that before encryption I closed the PIO editor and checked the vital functions. Took a holiday while waiting for the PIO editor to reappear, encrypted with success, and the object still works! Stop the press! New front page: It is actually possible to create and encrypt PIOs in VW 2008! Your chances of success may even be slightly higher than for a jackpot in Lotto. Consult your astrologist before attempting.

Right. Obviously since my active MapInfo-days, the price has come down. In 1994 I paid for MapInfo almost three times the price of MiniCAD and got a very, very simple program (compared with MiniCAD.) So, the simple MapInfo still costs 50% more than the sophisticated VectorWorks. You'd be ripped off buying MapInfo (although it is a far better GIS program than ArcView of which I would not pay more than a shareware fee of 20 ?. One only needs to do a SHAPE-format export from & import to VW to know why...) Well, whatever. One of these days I might have a fresh look at the buffer object for VW. Despite your clever workaround, in my line of work a buffer should be dynamic, ie. a "path" (polygon) PI-object that I could modify easily. Certain new features of VW and VectorScript may make this easier than it was 10 years ago. So, thanks for reminding me about the subject!

Yes, I have restarted. That did not at first make any at difference to anything, but later on when I was in the PIO editor of 2008 (making notes on parameters for rebuilding the PIOs in 12), I tried Duplicate once again and, lo and behold, it worked. This is weird! I guess I have to try and use 2008 again.

Ahh, the good old days of the Real Mc OS and ResEdit... We used to be able to have 16x16 and 32x32 fill patterns in VW back then. Extracting an icon from a Resource Fork of a file such as a workspace and inserting that into another one was a piece of cake. (How can "extracting" be "a piece"? Could it be "a picnic"? I don't think so..)

Why laugh? If one lives in a one-dimensional world, a 2 D bridge is incomprehensible.

As a non-native English speaker: a PIO can be generated any number of times. The first regeneration is the second generation. Funny that we can know that - unless that is related to the two generations in one generation. My apologies for being literal and precise as comes to the use of the English language. If I were a native speaker, I might just be as nonchalant, ambiguous and imprecise as Americans are.

Can't wait to see your 2D bridges! (Sorry, sorry...)

You still want a new tool set to have the same icon as another one? Anyway, you can easily do a screen dump to file and extract the icon, to be used in any tool set.

AFAIK, IsNewCustomObject determines whether the object has been used in the file, not whether the current incidence is a new one. I'm also interested to know why the same script (a .vss used via $INCLUDE) works in 12, but not in 13. EDIT "IsNewCustomObject Objects - Custom Declaration: FUNCTION IsNewCustomObject ( objectName:STRING ) :BOOLEAN ; Description: Function IsNewCustomObject returns whether the specified plug-in object is a new object, indicating that the object is being regenerated for the first time. New object status is useful in specifying initialization and setup data, as well as calling initialization specific subroutines. This function should only be called in plug-in objects." EDIT 2 I'm in the process of ensuring that tens of existing objects work in VW 2008 and improving them. I don't just work on one object. So far, the failure rate is 100%. EDIT 3 "Regenerated for the first time"? Well, that is a contradiction of terms... EDIT 4 I'm not sure if Ion has tested the script in a PIO. Does not look like that.

Now we're talking! However, wouldn't that be a precedence for demanding money for all and any minor upgrades, which traditionally have been free Roadkill?

You can create your own icons for your own tools sets with Photoshop or something similar. Having the same icon for several tool sets does not sound like a good user interface.

Goodonya, mate! You got it done with a program that costs, what, one third of MapInfo...

I think you will distort the skyline anyway. At least the spectators will have a distorted view - except perhaps the few who happen to sit at the original camera position and whose eyes match the objective's focal length. Now, in theatrical scenes 6 inches is, I think, nothing. In fact, even 3 feet are just one foot short of a spit-roasted pig. The whole nine yards might be significant... Will it look good? To whom, from where? It's all about smoke and mirrors, you know! Make the curved wall 1 mm thick. Do a solid subtraction. Get the crew to build it.

Yes, I know that. I have as sensible default values as I can define and then I leave everything to the Powdered Toast User. I don't want to override user input. (I might wish to do so, but that's another thing. It is the user's prerogative to be stupid. Besides, that usually means billable hours to yours truly. A true win-win case!)

At least in my experience, the creation of ghost images of PIOs and symbols is based on the "baby's bum" -principle: you never know what comes out, but it always stinks. I realise that with symbols, there may be user interface problems, but with PIOs, the Holy Programmer should be able to define the Ghost. After all, we are the Omnipotent Creators of everything else - why not Ghosts, too? (In symbols, maybe the first 2D group could be the Holy Ghost?)

I hope someone else understands what you want since you've totally lost me. Do you want to project the outline on a curve? (If so, "thickness" and "wall" are somewhat redundant.) From the little I still remember from the Photogrammetry Course at the Uni in 1971, this is mathematically doable if one knows the projection parameters. Texture mapping might also work...