Jump to content

Tom W.

Member
  • Posts

    4,852
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tom W.

  1. Ha ha ok! This was why I thought I'd post a discussion about it rather than charging straight in with a Wishlist item. But if the mode groups were split between Interactive + Transform would that compromise the way you (or Pat) work at all? All the options would still be there, just rearranged slightly. If you are not using Transform mode at all it may even be an improvement for you as would reduce the amount of clicks when cycling through the modes. I have literally NEVER used the first two modes + have never accidentally resized an object when moving it! 🤷‍♂️ I do use Move by Points a lot though... Thanks for the feedback.
  2. I really like TBBs! I think they are a really impressive feature. Be great to have this degree of functionality/customisation with other objects in VW!
  3. I get where you're coming from but I'm not sure how this would work. If the three Interactive modes formed Mode Group 1 then one of those modes would need to be active at any one time. If Transform Mode was in a mode group all of its' own, would activating it (by hitting the O key) automatically disable Mode Group 1...? That's why I was kind of thinking that Mode Group 1 should have two modes: Interactive (mode 1) + Transform (mode 2) with the U key toggling between them. In mode one (Interactive) you'd have access to the sub-modes relative to that mode e.g. 'Disabled Interactive Scaling Mode' or 'Single Object Interactive Scaling Mode'. And in mode two ('Transform') you'd have access to the sub-modes relative to that mode e.g. 'Translate + Rotate Mode', 'Re-position Mode', 'Align to Object' + 'Align to Working Plane'. Hmm... Thanks for the feedback/ideas!
  4. The real problem for me comes when you then want to insert a Door/Window/etc into this vertically stacked assembly + you have to line up multiple holes to make it work. But imagine the Wall Closures interface if you had three different wall build-ups within the same Wall object + wanted to punch a Door through all three of them...?
  5. I'm not familiar with Custom Cabinets but couldn't see a way to do it, other than running Command-K + converting it into a symbol then adding a Wall Hole Component to clip the recess into the Wall in 3D...
  6. If the 3D object has 'history' one option is to edit the 2D shape it was created from (with the Reshape Tool as you describe). So for example if you drew the frame as a 2D shape initially then extruded it outwards, you could double-click on the Extrude to get back to the original 2D shape to edit it. Or if it is a Generic Solid I would just use the Split Tool in the 2nd mode to cut it in half, move one half apart to make it wider, then use Push/Pull to join the top + bots rails back together then use Add Solids to make them a single object again. Or you can Push/Pull the outer edge of the frame whatever distance you need then Push/Pull the inner edge the same distance going in the same direction. Yes use the Add Solids command (right-click object context menu or Model menu).
  7. You can make a Section-Elevation Line that looks like that but it will only be linked to one Viewport so will display the same drawing number in both markers: To have it auto-coordinate you would need to have two separate Section-Elevation Lines drawn on top of each other:
  8. I have long thought this too. I've been using Smart Options Display instead for Reshape Tool + Move by Points as it's quicker than cycling through all the modes using the U key, especially since it got a bit snappier in VW2024 (although perhaps I imagined that...). But I kind of feel the Selection Tool is a special case. Modes 3 + 4 should be in their own mode group with holding down the Option key activating the opposite one like the Eyedropper Tool, or mode 4 should be in a mode of its own like Tobi says. The other tools I use all of the modes more or less equally whereas the Selection Tool feels like it has redundant modes that could be relegated somewhere else.
  9. Does anyone actually use 'Disabled Interactive Scaling Mode' or 'Single Object Interactive Scaling Mode' for the Selection Tool? Up until Update 4 I never strayed from the third mode ('Unrestricted Interactive Scaling Mode') so it was never an issue for me: I just completely ignored the first two modes. But now we have the wonderful fourth mode - 'Transform Mode' - I am regularly toggling between the third + fourth modes. Or rather, toggling between the third + fourth modes via the redundant first + second modes... What I would really like to be doing is toggling back + forth between 'Unrestricted Interactive Scaling Mode' + 'Transform Mode' with a single click. I was going to post a Wish about this but thought I'd better check first: does anyone actually use the first two modes or could they happily be relegated somewhere else...? Another option might be to hold down the Option key to activate the fourth mode temporarily... I would like to move between the 3rd + 4th modes far more quickly + easily than is currently the case.
  10. I've had lots of experience thank you 😆 Will do it now... Thanks for getting back to me.
  11. @Nikolay Beshevliev you've been so helpful I wonder if I can ask another question... I am using a data mapping that uses Class-based Objects to attach a Record Format to objects in these classes. If I make one of the classes active + create an object the record is automatically attached. Alternatively, if I have an existing object + I place it in one of the classes using the 'Class' drop-down in the OIP for that object the record is attached. However, if I change the object's class by right-clicking on the new class in the Navigation Palette + selecting 'Assign to Selection' the record is not attached. Is there a reason for this or is it a bug? I ask because I use 'Assign to Selection' to change an object's class more than any other method + I was confused as to why the objects weren't taking on the record format in the process. In order to make the data mapping 'stick' I have to move the object to a different class then reassign it to the right class but do it via the OIP this time. Hope that all makes sense. Thanks.
  12. I think with a database report you will need to use one of the Plant user fields or other existing data field for your notes (or attach a custom record) + get your report to return that field.
  13. You need to use three separate Walls one on top of the other. You can't do this with a single Wall
  14. No easy way but luckily we have @Pat Stanford on hand with a worksheet script which allows you to create a worksheet where you can edit the default field values for records attached to symbol definitions. See:
  15. You need to expand the worksheet to create an extra row then right-click on the new spreadsheet row (6) + select 'Create Report...': Maybe have a look at recent Coffee Break on Worksheets by @michaelk: https://university.vectorworks.net/mod/overview/view.php?id=6579
  16. I'd probably just add another database under the first one. Like this: By the way I have no idea why your B column is displaying blank in the worksheet! The data is there, it just isn't showing...
  17. You can use WS functions in Graphic Legends in the same way as Data Tags.
  18. Same here. See this thread - there are links to a couple of Wishlist items on it:
  19. There is a 'Plane Reference' button on the View Bar which sets whether the view is relative to the layer plane or working plane. I'm not sure what version you're using but this is VW2024:
  20. Sounds like you're using 'All criteria in this set' instead of 'Any criteria in this set'. The former will look for symbols which are on all three layers at the same time which clearly isn't going to happen. The latter will look for symbols which are on either one of the three layers. The former equates to 'Layer 1' and 'Layer 2' and 'Layer 3'. The latter equates to 'Layer 1' or 'Layer 2' or 'Layer 3'.
  21. Ok cool no worries! It's essentially the same deal with Section Viewports as well i.e. place the section lines in VP annotation space + use the 'Section Line Instances' dialog to determine where they additionally appear.
  22. If I understand you correctly you have placed your Detail Callouts on the Design Layer + you're trying to get them to display on a floor plan Viewport on a Sheet Layer? To do this you need to select the Detail Viewport + click on 'Detail Callout Instances...' in the OIP + make sure the floor plan VP is checked in the dialog. The way I do this is different though. I create the floor plan VP first then enter the annotations space + draw the detail callout out there to create the detail VP: I do it all on the sheet layer. If I want detail callouts on additional floor plans I use the 'Detail Callout Instances' dialog to add them. I don't put many annotations on the Design Layer.
  23. I am, yes, and we've discussed this previously. I can't remember the precise details but for whatever reason I decided the way the script worked wasn't going to benefit me. What I tend to do is create my first VP from the Design Layer then create duplicates from that on the Sheet Layer. So the initial VP gets the benefit of the Saved View settings but the subsequent ones I have to adjust manually on the SL whereas what I really want to do is just tell it to take it's visibilities from an existing Saved View. I don't think Jesse's script allows this...? I seem to remember you kept a dedicated 'master viewport' sheet layer or something with the express purpose of transferring visibility attributes? Might have got that completely wrong... At any rate I definitely looked at the script a couple of times + on both occasions decided it wasn't for me.
  24. Cool. What 'Link to calculated/user-entered field' does is transfer all of the text in the Current Tag Field Definition (or User-entered field) to a chosen data destination. So for example your Current Tag Field Definition might have multiple data sources which return the make, model number + manufacturer of an object + all of these could be combined into a single text value transferred to the ‘Description’ field of that object.
  25. The only way I can replicate this is if I have 'Link to calculated/user-entered field' enabled in the 'Define Tag Field' dialog. Does this apply in your case? If so, uncheck it. You don't want that to be checked. Otherwise it works fine at this end...
×
×
  • Create New...