Petri

Maybe "NC" is a mathematically challenged country, too?

Why do I think this is controlled by 2D conversion resolution? The oval ('ellipse')* is first converted into a polygon with 2D resolution, then the polygon is extruded. Check 2D conversion. If it not "High", redo the thing. The original oval does reside inside the floor. *) The VW oval is an ellipse only in the Netherlands and perhaps some other mathematically-challenged countries. The Dutch ignoramuses (which is not analogic to Dutch treats or Dutch courage) defend their position by calling those who understand mathematics "deluded". They'd make great medieval Popes and Grand Inquisitors, those Dutchmen!

You're short of words, then. OK. The point of unique names is that with them each object can be identified unambiguosly. Parametric objects can be associated with each other. A named object can be instantaneously found in the document. And so on. You can disagree to your heart's content, but you are wrong. Especially in what you think is the silver lining: your silver lining has a dark cloud.

It is good. What would be the point if a name could be used many times?

Firstly, you probably should, at least partly. Secondly, you can use "relative path". (Why do paths change, by the way?) How come? There is a copy of the referenced data in your file where ever you go.

OK here.

Sounds good.

This sounds exactly like my experience: any change will undo everything you've done so far. One of the reasons why I don't use or recommend the Plant tool.

Hmmm... I'm sure Thorsten Lemke would like to see the problem file! Low quality: well, they are rasterized. I wonder if Lemkesoft's CADintosh would be better.

Updating nested refs does not cascade, though: one needs to update one step at a time. (At least for those of us who believe that updates are a Management Decision.)

This is the only sensible way to deal with incoming data. NEVER import into the design file.

I don't know what the question is, but the answer could be Class Overrides in Wall Styles a la Viewports. Slightly enhanced, though, to allow for different line weights on different sides of a component. From BIM-perspective, one has a class for any material used in the building. However, one may not want to show them in the same way in walls as elsewhere; nevertheless, there should be only one class for bricks, only one for mortar and so on. (Not yet had the time to check wall styles in VW 2008, so I may totally misinterpret the question & the situation.)

GraphicConverter, of course! Everyone should have GC - the Swiss Army Knife of graphics. You can then save the file in practically any (raster) format.

An untested theory: change the scale of all design layers to 1:1, then export. Fascinating! So, in AutoCAD it is possible to make a file unusable? Surely here we have the supreme benchmark in AutoCAD, the epitome of user-friendliness. Maybe one day VW reaches this level of sophistication!

A wall is an intelligent, high-level object with behaviour, inheritance and so on. A mesh is a low-level primitive, ie. a data container. You can't convert this way - the only way is from intelligent objects to dumb data containers.

What? (I've not had time to explore the "classable" wall components yet.) This sounds like the Leninist "one step forward, two steps backwards" -situation!

Indeed. However, one CAD-software company isn't even remotely interested: Autodesk! Their Revit-program can import AutoCAD-files only as 2D-graphics, to be traced over.

It depends. Now, I know little about drafting; I'm approaching this from modelling point of view. (Yes, one can model with rectangles!) A rectangle may represent something of fixed dimensions - even a two-by-four. It may be rotated, say, 89.999?, 90? or 90,001?. These all may, through display settings, appear as 90?. Can anyone suggest a reason for omitting the rotation in certain angles? For the 2x4, I prefer to know if it is on its side, so even 90? rotation may well be information, perhaps even passed as numeric data to some other program (or a VectorScript even). I'd hate to deal with three rotated rectangles, two of them saying that the rotation angle is 90?, one saying nothing. I guess this is one of the situations when old hands want to stick to their bad habits (caused by bad programming until now) and the infamous "what they know". Similarities with the Attribute Palette thread: the Luddite Empire Strikes Back, huh? Hey, this is actually true Progress! One of these decades, we may even have a decent CAD-program. (Let me see... my wish list - ahh, there... implemented features... let's assume an 18 month cycle - some point-fives have been significant... no, some full versions haven't...) OK, folks: by 2180 (? 20 years) VectorWorks can finally compete with leading CAD-software of 2007. Unless the Luddites win, of course.

Static, of course. I'm all too familiar with the three fingers (actually, thumb & two fingers) gesturing: when determining rotation axes in programming, it is the only way to get the values right. (I've always been able to hover over any point and read off a reliable Z value.)

Count me in. Count me out. While it might be possible with "simple" 3D-extrusions, it would be very confusing to see info of some 3D-objects, not some others. On the other hand: bottom & top z-values are always unambiguous, so they could well be shown. Possibly also centre.

Just bugsubmitted this: Making a duplicate of a worksheet/report: changing the copy corrupts the original! I make a duplicate of a (formatted) report worksheet. Then I change the criteria & column contents in the copy. This causes the original to get corrupted: the criteria of the copy are used, calculations do not work. Re-defining criteria does not help. The only cure is to import the copy into another file, delete it from the source and import back. This is an old bug that I must have reported already years ago! Does anyone else have the same experience?

Indeed. I have wish-listed this already years ago. Names becoming more and more important, access to them should be easier. I've also wishlisted the ability to split PIO parameters to panes. Panes are not a pain to me.

Bruce, I'm afraid I don't quite understand... Road sections 1:1?

As annotation?

Can't reproduce.