Jump to content

Neil Barman

Vectorworks, Inc Employee
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Neil Barman

  1. Well... After a few different attempts at using the "Layer Import" option, and re-building the files (don't ask how long that took) unfortunately using "layer imports" didn't do the trick. I still didn't end up with the visibility control I needed.

    What ultimately has worked (and thank you Jonathan for your clarity) was to:

    - Duplicate my Design Layer Viewport for each unit.

    - Turn on the layers I wanted to appear in each of the two viewports (in my case, one VP should show the main floor plan, the other should show all floors and roofs of the building.)

    - Make two Classes, one for Viewports-Plans and the other for Viewports-Full Buildings.

    - Assign each VP to its appropriate Class.

    - Group each pair of VPs.

    - Go to my Site Plan VP, which appears on my Site Plan Sheet, and turn on the Class: Viewport-Plans (and turn off Viewports-Full Buildings)

    - Go to my Site Section Key Plan VP, which appears on my Site Sections Sheet, and turn on Viewports-Full Buildings (and turn off Viewports-Plans). My Section Viewports are cut using this Key Plan VP and therefore show the full building sectioned along with the site.


    Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.


  2. Hang in there.

    I forgot to add this! I agree, hang in there. Given the size of the purchase, it might just be taking an interested party a while to arrange for it or to see if they can afford it.

    Neil - Thanks for posting your Quimper House link. Nice slideshow of the construction!

    You're welcome... An updated website with more build photos coming soon. I just became so busy the day after we moved in that I haven't had a chance to polish the website changes.


  3. Hi All,

    I'm new to the forum.

    As you can see we listed 5 (now 3) VW 2011 Licenses for sale.

    One was sold outside of this forum.

    We havent rec'vd any interest in our offer after 2 weeks.

    Is this because:

    1. No one needs our product?

    2. the price is too high?

    3. there are too few users on this forum?

    4. A combination of all of the above.

    Any suggestions about where/how we should/could move these?

    Any help would certainly be appreciated?


    I'm just taking a guess at this, based on my exposure to many firms using the software and years of using it myself...

    1. Possibly... Most people or firms I know of/have worked with have VW Architect and barely even scratch the surface of using that as it is. Having Designer would simply be overkill for them. Obviously mine is just a small sampling of a much larger user base though.

    2. The price seems quite fair to me... quite good actually. But this is assuming that Designer would get utilized.

    3. I doubt this. However, most users here already seem to have the VW that works for them so perhaps it's more a case of there being too few users here who aren't already equipped.

    Have you considered trying to sell the licenses through your local/provincial Architectural Institute chapter/body? Or perhaps your local VW dealer can connect you with a party looking to purchase that version of the software? Just some possible avenues to consider.

    For what it's worth, I just looked at a side-by-side comparison of what's currently in Designer vs Architect and I must say there isn't a considerable difference between the two. Given that, #2 might be the issue... For someone to pay for your Designer licenses plus upgrade them, they really had better get good use out of Designer. Otherwise, simply getting Architect or Landmark would likely be enough for their purposes and would carry a lower VSS price going forward.


  4. Hi Neil,

    Yes, if you don't change the Design Layer's Name you may have a conflict in the Document you've referenced the Layer to.

    That's that I would imagine... if not for the file but at some point for my brain.

    So, would you recommend that I use the "Layer Import" option for each of the referenced units? Aside from given me access to the units' file layers are there any other other advantages/caveats I should know?



  5. Hi Neil,

    - Are the ALL of the other Layers of the Building referenced into the File?

    Jim, might this be the setting that you are referring to?

    Organization palette > References > (Select a reference, then) Settings... > "Use this method to reference Vectorworks files:"

    Currently I have "Design layer viewports" selected, but I am wondering if you'd recommend I switch to "Layer Import"?

    And if I do switch, before I switch should I go into each unit's file and change the "Floor-1" layer in each file to "Unit-X Floor-1" to keep all of the layers recognizable in their destination file?



  6. To see contours in Top view, you would need to check the box for "show 3D contour" in the 3D Display settings side of the Site Model Settings dialog box.

    Yes, this part I know, and I do have "Show 3D contours" checked for my DTM. The contours are showing up as I would like them to. The problem is that the triangles also appear.

    I have at least figured out a workaround for this... Edit the DTM's "Graphic Properties" and set the "3D Triangles" to have 0.00 line weight. Now I can see the DTM's contours but no triangles.

    I dont' really understand your other problem, but I think the confusion comes from the referenced design layers. You can only have one setting for a referenced layer's visibilities. So if the referenced layer is set to show the roof layer, for example, in one viewport it will show the roof layer in the other viewport.

    To get around this, you can reference the same file more than once and set different visibilities.

    I think you do actually understand my other problem! At least it sounds like you do. I may resort to doing multiple references of the same units to get different visibilities, but only if this is the best/recommended/only way to achieve what I need. I would have thought that Layer Overrides for a viewport would have prevent the need to do this.


  7. Hmmm, interesting. I just tried making a Design Layer Viewport and a Sheet Layer Viewport from the view I posted above. The Sheet Layer Viewport displayed perfectly as expected as 2D everything. But the Design Layer Viewport displayed the DTM as 2D Top/Plan view and the building walls layer and the roof layer as 3D Top view. I fiddled around and found that if I opened up the Viewport Layers Properties dialog box and switched any of the visible layers to Invisible, hit the Preview button, then switched it back to Visible, it "fixed" the problem. When I exited out of the dialog box all three of my layers now displayed properly as 2D Top/Plan. I'm guessing this is a bug. I'm on VW2011 so I don't know how it will react on your version. But give it a try. Click on your Layers button for the Viewport, change any visible layer to Invisible, then change it back and see if it displays properly.

    I only had to toggle one Visible layer to have it correct all of the layers.

    In my case it's the Sheet Layer viewport that is displaying the site model with all of its triangles.

    Regardless, I tried your technique on that Sheet Layer viewport but there was no change to its appearance in the end.


  8. The DTM should show with only 2D contours in a Top/Plan View, not a zillion triangles.

    I would love it if the DTM would do that, but so far when I turn on the layer with the DTM (while in Top/Plan view) I get all the triangles. Must I edit the DTM itself and make the line attribute for the triangles white?


    It should all be automatic. The DTM is a hybrid object similar to Symbols, in that in Top/Plan view you get a 2D display and in all others a 3D display. Are you sure you're in Top/Plan view and not Top view?

    Here is a screenshot of what a DTM should look like in Top/Plan view, and also one with the settings for that particular DTM.

    A clarification... My DTM shows without the triangles while viewing the _Layer_ in Top/Plan view. It looks like the first screenshot you shared.

    However, when I make a Top/Plan viewport of that DTM layer, I see the triangles in that viewport.

    I have matched your DTM's settings but it has not changed my result.

    Attached should be some screenshots.


  9. - Are the ALL of the other Layers of the Building referenced into the File?

    I am thinking they might not be properly/fully referenced in, because I can only turn them on/off from the Layers dropdown in the OIP when I have the unit viewports selected. When I go to the viewport made from this site plan layer (that has all the units showing) I no longer have access to the units' own layers.

    - Have you navigated to the Section from the Viewport & then changed the Class & Layer Visibility to "SHOW SNAP MODIFY"?

    I just did this, but the units' layers still don't show up in the Layer drop down of the OIP, probably due to them not being reference in fully/properly.


  10. Jim, with my limited (but growing) understanding of VW in 3D, I would say... No.

    This is what I've got...

    I have a DTM on its own layer. On another layer I have the units referenced in from three separate unit files. I originally had each unit VP at Z=0 but have now moved each one up to its anticipated Z height.

    So, in Top/Plan view the site plan looks like a typical 2D site plan, though at the current stage of design I am showing main floor plans and not roofs. (The DTM isn't visible because the gazillion triangles that make it would show.) The catch is, by showing the units' main floor plans only, the Section viewports of the whole site are of course missing the top floors and roofs of all these units.


  11. Hi J.

    Yes, I know you can make many viewports from a single design layer and I have done this, albeit only for various top/plan views for a long time. As I am now learning proper 3D techniques and am making DTMs (Digital Terrain Models) I am now using Section Viewports to cut through the terrain and the viewports of the various units on the site.

    So, I suppose the catch is that I would like to have two viewports of a single layer but I want the viewports to show different things... in one case just the Floor-1 layers of the referenced units and the other viewport I want to show all Floor & Roof layers.

    Normally I would adjust layer and class visibilities in each viewport to make this happen, but the units themselves are referenced-in from separate file, so the layers & classes I want to turn off/on are not in the Layers/Classes dropdown lists for those viewports. I've also not done a lot of Referencing so I am not aware of all its complexities... but it seems I have found one.


  12. I have a question that I have been working through much of the day. I haven't found a solution or a clear answer yet so I am hoping the brain trust here can assist... I may simple have thought about it, and tried to solve it, too much in one day... Hopefully I can make the question make sense...

    If I want to have two viewports,

    one showing a site plan (with referenced-in main floor plans only) as a regular viewport


    the other showing a true site section of a DTM (with full house sections) as a Section Viewport,

    must I be creating these two different viewports from two different ?Site? layers,

    one showing just the site with main floor plan layer (in the referenced-in house viewports)


    the other showing the site with all floor and roof layers (in the referenced-in house viewports)?

    I had hoped that I could derive both the plan and section viewports from a single Site layer and control visibilities of layers Floor-2, Roof-1 and Roof-2 in each viewport using Viewport overrides, but the Section Viewport does not ?look? at my referenced house viewports to ?see? what layers & classes it has to choose from. It only ?looks? one step back, to my Site Plan layer where I have referenced-in the house plans.

    I certainly hope that made sense, and that someone can set me straight.

    Thanks in advance,


  13. Interesting question Rob.

    I would think it would be easiest and most consistent to achieve via separate classes for each type of space, though you could of course do this with individual Attribute settings too.

    I suppose the larger question for me is, what are you trying to communicate in the view of the model you're talking about? For example, are you trying to show a client where the vertical circulation spaces are in relation to office/living spaces? Or work spaces vs living spaces? (And by "spaces" are you referring to actually using the Space Tool?)

    Might you have an image showing a model similar to what you are thinking of?


  14. What about batch creating a multi-sheet PDF (as it's not a bad idea to keep a record set) and then print that multi-shett PDF to your printer, double-sided? I know it's doesn't directly do what you were hoping for, but for a work-around at least your' left with something useful in the record set.

    Having experience with many printers/plotters over the years, my guess is that it *might* be a printer driver issue... For example, I recall older HPs would simply NOT rotate a page correctly no matter what I tried.

    Which version of VW and OS are you using, and what printer are we talking about? (You might want to add this info to your automatic signature as it tends to help people when they're assisting here.)


  15. For what it's worth, my installation of 2014 has all the libraries of your screenshot's right side (the 2013 set). I used the largest versions of the individual package installers to add libraries, as opposed to the "Full" package at the top of the download page.


  16. SL,

    I have not had any trouble at all with the sensitivity of my Vertical Mouse 4. It is fully (and easily) adjustable by both software and a hardware button that if I am needing scrolling or pointer tracking faster or slower on any given day I can change it quickly. The range of adjustability is quite big, from ridiculously slow to lightening fast, so I am sure you'd be able to find a setting you like. (And I'm on a Mac too, so I can vouch for it working well with Macs.)

    As for the size of the mouse, I too have small-ish hands (195mm from tip of middle finger to wrist crease) and the "regular" size of the Vertical Mouse is great. They do have a smaller size though if you need. Check out this hand size info here:


    Given your requirements of needing something "comfy, precise and ergonomic", the Vertical Mouse will fit your needs. (And no, I don't work for them, I was just so impressed with how I felt absolutely no pain after full, long days of work that I simply can't not share my discovery.)


  17. First off, Thank you!!

    As for the issue... While I know what you mean about operator error, I can assure that it wasn't the case this time. I tutor VW in 2D and am painfully methodical (just ask my wife) so I was doing what I was advised. I even did it in 2D and 3D just to see if the view somehow had an effect.

    Good to know about VW2014 helping to solve this too. I was using 2013 on this file, but I will do some tests once I get 2014 installed. I'm also going to do some tests with the origin to see if/how that might have buggered things up for 2013.

    Oh, and I totally agree about tree symbols. In this case I'm just needing to get the trunk diameters onto the terrain so that I can export a useful terrain for a coworker to work with in Sketchup. (He has never used VW and now is not the time for him to learn.)

    Again, thank you so much!


  18. Peter,

    The circles were actually ones I drew myself on top of tree symbols that arrived with an imported DWG, but I'm not sure now to tell/fix this.

    I've now added a screenshot showing the result of a "partial" send to surface, as most items seem to do as well as the VW file with the DTM and the circles in case you are able to see any obvious issue with it.

    While I don't have lots of VW 3D experience, I have usually been able to figure things out This one however is really stumping me.


  19. Hi Peter,

    Thank you for the tip, but unfortunately it does not seem to work. I tried both the High and Very High settings, and while there is a slight difference in how much of each circle (turned 3D poly) gets Sent to Surface, some of each circle still gets left at Z=0. (I did try every single of the 80 or so circles, but the same thing occurred with the sampling that I did try with.)

    I would attach a screenshot of this but I'm not quite sure how.

    Oh, and for what it's worth, since I originally posted I've also tried:

    - Making the circle into a symbol and sending to surface... a flat disc ends up getting halfway "edged" into the terrain's face, rather than being "mapped" onto the terrain.

    - Drawing a new polygon inside the circle and sending that poly to surface... Some of the poly is still left at Z=0.

    - Converting the circle into a NURBS and sending it to surface... Some of that is still left at Z=0, though it's a different amount than was left with the polygon.


  20. Hello all,

    I am relatively new to using VW in 3D but am getting the hang of it. One thing I am having trouble figuring out is how to transfer the locations of existing trees (circles representing their trunk diameters, imported with a survey file) to the surface of a DTM.

    I have the DTM made and it's looking good with Z ranges from 54m to 66m). I have circles on the Site Model layer too but all their Z's=0 as they came in with a survey. I have tried turning the circles into Polygons then doing "Send to surface", but they don't move up to the surface of the DTM. The odd thing is, if I draw a brand new polygon (at Z=0) and then Send it to Surface, it DOES move up to be drawn on the surface of the DTM.

    (I have also tried turning the circles into Site Modifiers (Pads) but I would have to set the Z for each one, and I just want them to be drawn on the DTM's surface.)

    Can anyone point me in the right direct to get these circles drawn on the surface of the DTM (aside from having to redraw every single one as a new polygon)?

    Thanks in advance,


  21. I absolutely love my Evoluent Vertical Mouse 4. (I had v2 (wired) for years and opted to get v4 when it came out earlier this year. My v2 is still here as a backup.) I'm hooked on the handshake position that it lets my hand remain in, rather than having to twist my forearm as is the case with most typical mice. The many buttons map well to VW keyboard shortcuts and the adjustable tracking speed can be quite handy too.

    An added bonus is the vertical mouse is so strange for people to use at first that the tend to avoid using your computer.



  • Create New...