Jump to content

Tom W.

Member
  • Posts

    4,788
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3,466 Spectacular

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Buildings Manager + Self-Builder
  • Location
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

15,158 profile views
  1. 5. A 2D walk line/slope arrow controlled by class like the Stair tool.
  2. Ok many thanks Nick that's very helpful. Mystery solved! On the discussion earlier in this thread about combing object-based mappings, would it be possible in future to 1) command-select multiple objects + create an object-based mapping from them? + 2) have an interface a bit like Data Visualisation where you have a list of object-based mappings with check-boxes + can select which ones you want to apply + more easily see what's currently active? I am not a 'power user' of the Data Manager by any stretch so am probably missing something but I find it hard to know 1) if a mapping is applied at all in a file + 2) what that mapping is. If I apply a mapping it just says '<Document's Settings>' in the 'Settings' drop-down with no indication of what the settings are. I have to click through the objects to see what the mappings are.
  3. @Nikolay Beshevliev perhaps you can answer this: when I open a data mapping in a file + that mapping involves Record Formats, where is the Data Manager bringing those Record Formats into the file from? So I open a new blank file: it contains no resources. I open the Data Manager + select one of my saved mappings: now the file contains (for example) two Record Formats associated with that mapping. Where is the DM getting them from? I only ask because I notice that the Record Formats it brings into the file don't contain the tags that my original versions had (the text you can enter when you right-click on a resource + select 'Edit Tags...'). Thanks!
  4. You could try editing the texture mapping in the OIP for those objects (Render tab > Offset V parameter) + see if that helps. Or post the file as seems a bit strange to be getting those lines in those places. Or use a different texture as presumably something that tiles seamlessly like @rDesign says would be preferable? Your texture doesn't really resemble MDF even at the original scale in my opinion... If you go to File > Import mtextur... there are some chipboard textures you could adapt by using Image Effects and/or a Filter Colour to make look like MDF e.g. an 8x4 sheet: Or there are lots of other sites you can download textures from for free. Or create a new texture from scratch using a solid colour + add bump. Lots of options...
  5. Do you mean in section VPs rather than Top/Plan? I'm not sure I've ever tagged a Space in section but never had any problems in Top/Plan. Even with two overlapping spaces. Yes, using All Eligible Objects mode was what was recommended to me in section VPs but you just end up with hundreds of tags needing deleting + it can be very hard to know which tags relate to the visible objects + which to hidden objects e.g.: Ironically, in section VPs I've found it quicker + easier (+ in many cases actually the only viable option) to manually tag the objects, effectively using a Data Tag like a Callout. I discussed this issue with @Nikolay Zhelyazkov six months ago + he said: "I will add an enhancement request in our database with your file so that this kind of views can be considered to be supported better in the future. The first thing that comes to my mind is to have another tool mode that shows you a dialog with all eligible objects with some relevant data and lets you select which of them to tag. What do you think about this, would it fit well in your workflow? Anyway, this is just my initial thought. There might be better approaches for this, so we will see." Be interesting to know if there's been any movement on this...Nikolay?
  6. I finally posted a bug report about this as have never had a response from VW when posting about it here (since 2021!). I don't know whether there's something I should be differently or whether it's working as designed or whether it's a bug...
  7. #WS_COMPONENTMATERIAL(1)# will return the name of the Material used by the first component in a Wall (or Roof, Roof Face, Slab). You will need to make separate Data Tags for each of the other components i.e. a (2) version, a (3) version, etc depending on how many components are involved. Or combine them all in a single multi-line tag. You are tagging the Wall object as a whole rather than the individual components, then telling the tag which part of the Wall you're interested in. #WS_MATPROPERTYBYNAME(COMPONENTMATERIAL(1), 'materialdescription')# will return the 'Description' field of the Material used by the first component in a Wall (or Roof, Roof Face, Slab). The same thing applies about needing a new formula for each component. I don't think there's a way to return the 'Description' field for the Class a Wall component in is... But if you use Materials do you need to? Just use classes for visibility. For me, the disadvantage of Data Tags is not that there isn't the formulae to return all the data you want, it's that much of the time you struggle to make the association with the object in order for the formula to work. Section Viewports (in my experience) are a complete nightmare: often the tag wants to associate with every other object in the model (including invisible ones) instead of the one that's front + centre + will either only make the association if you're willing to place the tag in some inconvenient location off to the side or it simply won't do it at all. If you don't have your wits about you you will think it's associated with your object as it's in the right place + is displaying data, but when you check you realise the data is incorrect + the association is actually with an invisible object behind! Top/Plan VPs are far more successful but I've given up trying to tag Wall/Slab/Roof components in section VPs. It's a real shame but I appreciate it's complex from an engineering point of view. Superficially, a section VP which is just displaying the cut plane seems to be the same animal as a Top/Plan VP but they are completely different of course.
  8. I have just imported four point clouds + I'm seeing the same thing I described earlier: if I try to bring them into a Georeferenced file they look like this: With half the points missing. These are my own point clouds scanned with the iPad so not georeferenced but regardless of whether 'centre on internal origin is enabled' or not they come into the file in the same place, centred in fact on the User Origin. So I have to first import them into a blank non-georeferenced file, where they come in properly (with all points present)... ...then import them from there into the (georeferenced) project file. In this case I am having to manually position the point clouds anyway because I scanned them myself so not the end of the world, but even so it's more steps than it should be. And if the point clouds were georeferenced it would be an even huger PITA of course because I'd not be getting the benefit of the georeferencing.
  9. I never noticed that check box before! That changes my layout to this: Which I prefer! Thank you!
  10. In the layout plan I posted earlier, the kitchen units + electrical devices are all on the same 'Objects' design layer but because you have Top/Plan stacking order I just make sure the elec items are on top: In fact, they are generally always on top by default because I draw the kitchen units first then the electrical items afterwards. So in 3D the symbol is below the worktop for example but in 2D it is above. The exception to this is the wall units which are on their own design layer (so I can set their height by the layer elevation + easily control their visibility) so I tend to grey that layer for the layout drawings in order to view the elec items which are underneath (you can see the greyed out wall units above). This is fine for my purposes.
  11. It works fine for me: Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're after.
  12. Yes I think I realised how impractical my suggestion was soon after posting. In that case how about a Top/Plan VP of just the electrical symbols stacked on top of a 'normal' HSVP showing everything else?
  13. I've realised you can include both 2D + 3D geometry inside a Data Tag so it might work, but I don't know enough about HSVPs to say. Data Tags don't have to be attached to other objects if you don't want them to: the association with an object is so you can return data from that object in the tag display but you can also just use tags as dumb markers if you wanted, but then they're essentially no different to symbols, unless I suppose you were using a leader... And you don't need to see an object in a VP in order to associate a tag with that object (+ return data attached to it). This is actually a curse rather than a blessing most of the time because the tag can be picking up hundreds of other (invisible) objects + not the (visible) one you're interested in... But for something like a Space object it works very well: most of the time I don't want to actually see the Space, I just want to return data from it in a label (room name, floor area, etc). I guess my position would be that you should be using Top/Plan for this because this is precisely what it's designed for. Can you not have a workflow where you use HSVPs for the bulk of your plans + Top/Plan just for the schematic ones...?
  14. I think the thing to do is to make a blue (Group) symbol from the two Stakes + the Hybrid Symbol. Then you have a single symbol that inserts as a Group + therefore preserves the functionality of the Stakes.
  15. I think it's a case of the whole symbol being either page-based or world-based: you can't mix + match within the same symbol. I personally have never found it an issue the schematic symbols scaling with the VP, in fact this is my preferred behaviour, but no harm in having the option were you to wish for it. I never use HSVPs so can't really comment on this. I find Top/Plan gives me everything I need in terms of the drawings I want to generate.
×
×
  • Create New...