Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by alanmac

  1. Although I've never used Autodesks products, three weeks using Inventor I don't really count, I'm would not be surprised that in a simple exercise such as this they'd be similiar. I imagine its only when working to a higher level of detail etc. that VW's advantages widen the gap and increase user enjoyment if that's the right word. From the perspective of a user mostly happy with his choice of software I would imagine it would take something really bad or drastic to want me to change and learn another program. As a user of VW standard version if the further separating off in each upgrade of what I regard as basic requirements in any program of this type, to the so called Industry collections would be one reason. Indeed this has already got me looking to see what others have to offer, something I'd never have contemplated a few years ago. Alan
  2. Hi Nicholas To muddy the waters further, when David and I went through it together we also tried using solid subtraction rather than clipping. Created the shapes, clipped them, then used the offset tool, to create the outer shape but instead of clipping we extruded both shapes and used solid subtraction. David then saw the shape as he expected, filled..... Although after your discovery regarding it working in clipping if its an inner offset, but unfilled if its an outer we'd have to ask David what he did inner or outer before extrude and subtract. Of course with 12.5 in the wings no maintenance work is going to be done to rectify this bug, but at least we know and have a workround of sorts. Alan
  3. Hi Nicholas What can't be explained is the fact that Davids VW 11.5 file which creates unfilled extrudes on his machine when saved down as a VW10 file and sent to me, opens and renders with filled extrudes..... I do nothing at all to the file except set isometric view and use the hidden line render command. David thinks it may be a setting on his preferences etc. but I can't imagine what or where. Alan
  4. Another method. Draw your first horizontal line. Double click the rectangle tool. Enter the size as 6" in x, -5" in y. Make sure the insertion point is top left, and you are using next mouse click as your insertion method. Using smart cursor get the left hand end of your line and click to place rectangle in drawing. Line tool again. Using smart cursor, get it positioned on the bottom right corner of the rectangle, click and drag down 12" click to finish. Remove rectangle. Your line is in place. Same method for left hand line, using rectangle tool, alter size to suit and insertion point to top right and VW smart cursor to achieve the same. Again just another approach. It's up to you which is best, fastest, easiest etc. From your other posts it sounds like you had formal training in another CAD program and are seeking the same type of approach in VW - to do it the "right way" in other words. For that I'd look to taking a course with a qualified VW trainer. Otherwise welcome to the suck it and see club from one of its most untrained members. Alan
  5. David As descibed by others there are several ways of approaching this using the flexible workings of VW. No formal CAD training here, in fact Technical Drawing at school was my last stint of formal education relating to drafting. Draw your top line by using the line tool. Click for the line start, drag it across the x axis till you see 8" in the data bar, click to finish. With the line tool still selected get the cursor/mouse to the right side of your drawn line using the smart cursor feedback. Click on that end point and draw a line down, in the data bar wait till you get 12" and click to finish line. Now double click the move tool with the line still selected. Input 6" in x , -5" in the y, hit enter - its were you want it. Use the same method for your left hand side line, with the line tool selected click on the left hand end of your first line, draw down 6". Double click the move tool, enter -4" in the x., -4" in the y, hit enter. Line now in place. Use the dimension tool with the smart cursor facilities of VW to draw your dimensions. This can be speeded up by knowing the keyboard shortcuts for each command. It may not be the fastest, indeed I think Jonathan's probably is, but just shows the different ways one can do things in VW. Regards Alan
  6. Just tried and cannot replicate your problem. Try restarting program/computer to see if that makes a difference. Alan
  7. Check that the shapes you start off with have a "solid" fill. There are several ways to do this type of thing. 1. Draw everything as individual lines, arcs, etc. touching each other then use the "compose" tool. 2. Try again and do as you have been doing and clip one surface from another then extrude. 3. Extrude your shapes then use the "subtract soilds" command under modelling to get the final shape. All have ther pros and cons. The last method makes for bigger files but can be easier to go back and edit shapes to alter your design. The first method probably produces the smallest file but compose can be fussy and you need to ensure points touch exactly, no gaps , no overlaps. Zooming right in helps. Once the object is made you can edit the shape using the 2D reshape tool but its moving points and you lose any set radius arcs. If you want me to look at the file I'd be glad to, but I'm on 10.5 here so you'll have to export it down to that. Send me a PM via the forum. I'm in the UK. Alan
  8. Just flicked onto the site before going to bed actually. Yes, I saw this over on CGTalk about an hour ago. Great news, I have to say I can hardly believe it. I could say I stand by my original post that the comparison was unfair in the link I originally posted and my post was related to that but I hold up my hands and say that indeed at this moment in time to many the impossible has happened - Apple is indeed cheaper. I can't imagine how they've done it and I certainly would not expect the likes of Dell etc. to not react to this. If its a special deal cut between Intel and Apple then the rest of the industry is going to be very upset. After a few configuration attempts on the Dell site (boy, do they make that process difficult) you only come equal or close by only having one dual core processor. It's like Apple are saying buy one get one free. After years of thinking about owning an Apple personally it was always the price that held me back, and the cost of changing programs over. I've got no excuse now, other than the little matter of somebody very important who wants a new kitchen, bathroom and the rest of the house finished before I get a "new toy" as she calls it, otherwise I'd order one tomorrow. I can't see the boss at work upgrading my Dual 2 ghz G5 anytime soon sadly so I'll just have to watch with envy you guys. So Apple have come up trumps, guess it's NNA's turn now, UB 12.5 I'm sure will be here shortly. Hope that stands up better than my Dell remarks ;~) Night. Have a good weekend. Alan
  9. Cristiaan You're as daft as me up this late arguing the toss. I'm off to bed. You didn't win by the way, coz you moved the goalposts. ;~) Alan
  10. Deluded me. Sorry Christiaan it's you who seem unable to grasp the simple fact and logic, and I've now seen it commented upon in several other forums, that the comparison that is being portrayed to show that Apple machine is much cheaper than the Dell is simply not correct. That aside, it doesn't take much business expertise to come to the conclusion the economy of scale and such obvious factors as the style, materials and make up of the Apple system case for example, mean that Dell has a manufacturing cost advantage. Sure the now defunct dual core dual processor machine was fast, but it took dual processors to get it to that level at that price, to insure it remained viable amongst the alternatives workstations available. It's disappointing that as part of its launch Apple has to use the poor marketing practise of slagging off another company, and distorting the reality to do it. Hypocritical also considering past remarks about Intel machines. But its not the first time, and to be fair not just Apple, all part of the tricks that marketing gets up to to push their products. I quote from another forum with regard to the same article I mentioned. "It's very typical for the raving fanbase to make such bold and unsubstantiated claims, such as when OSViews claimed that the macbook was cheaper than a comparable Dell... even though the Dell they used in the comparison was Dell's most expensive model, and the macbook was Apple's least expensive model, and MUCH less powerful and de-featured by comparison. Of course, it turned out that a real comparison showed the prices to be pretty close, making the raving fanbase's claims unnecessary, but if they were rational, they wouldn't be raving acolytes No one's going to underprice Dell without cutting a lot of very nasty corners **cough** , but comparing the macpro to something comparably equipped from... say... Boxx will probably look better for Apple than comparing to Dell." I can tell you are a "dedicated" Apple fan so I'll not waste my time further. Alan
  11. And my point was that to spread around that Apples new machine is cheaper than say a Dell with the same hardware is simply not true. I don't see anything wrong in being a bit more expensive if you see the value in that additional cost through build quality and design, which Apple certainly has. I'm not defending Dell as a company or its machines and I'm genuinely pleased that Apple users, myself included, now have the opportunity to buy machines with the sort of speed that Windows users have enjoyed for years, myself included. Even Apple proudly boasts how much faster these are over its old G5's etc. But that was not the case pre Intel partnership days was it !! So apart from personal preference in choice of OS the machines will be much more closely matched than ever before with the difference in cost much clearer. Alan
  12. So do Apple. $1000 cheaper than Dell apparently too. Nope. Certainly not if you are refering to this article as being spread around the various forums, as the basis for your statement. http://hardware.seekingalpha.com/article/15126 From what I can see on the site they are not as stated "comparable" or vastly cheaper, from the Mac Pro and Dell configuration, which shows nearly a thousand dollars difference in the chart. Apple Mac Pro = 2499 Dell Precision Workstation 690 = 3471 The Mac Pro has a different graphics card a nVidia 7300 GT card whilst the Dell has a Quadro FX 3450 which I understand from a comment further down would bring them up to the same price level if added to the Apple, and if you wanted to get picky the Dell probably comes with a longer warranty. Indeed the only Quadro you can get from Apple in your machine adds 1650 dollars to the 2499. Sorry, but to my way of thinking unless Apple are subsidising the cost of Mac Pros from the sale of iPods and selling at a loss, the economies of scale and cost of such items as the high quality ali case on the Apple means they will never uncut Dell. I'm glad to see the Mac Pros are out at last, but it appears to me that in some areas people are getting carried away about how they are vastly cheaper than Dell etc. I would not mind paying some extra money for the Apple because of its superior build, style, and different OS but I can't see it ever being much cheaper than Dell etc. not without losing something along the way. Alan
  13. There are a couple of ways. I use class exporting/importing. Give all the seperate objects you want to work on seperately in Artlantis a class name. Make them up to suit yourself, using the class dialog. Change the class of each object in its OIP then go to Artlantis export, choose export by class option and it should come in fine as seperate defined objects. Alan
  14. What are the specifications of the machines that you are comparing VW12 on ? I'm sure Katie would say try repairing permissions etc. to see if that helps, but it could be that the Mac is much lower in spec, memory etc. than the PC's you have. I'm assuming you are seeing the Mac to be much slower than the Windows machine, but are not using the new Intel Macs, the reason you asked about the new Macs is for your reference with regard to future planning, upgrading etc. Alan
  15. Hi Katie Interesting, and somewhat disconcerting. As a UK user I'm a dongle encumbered user and reluctently accept this is brought about by the demands of this countries distributor, unlike you folks in the US. I can understand you shaping the release, dongles etc to suit local distributor requirement to protect say their investment but not have this basic release model throughout the whole world I find strange. I was in fact told twice, once here and once on the users list that release 12 would be dual platform capable with one serial number for both, by Sean Flaherty if my memory serves me correctly. Name me one other major software release that does such a thing to its users. I'm not talking about the different numbers for Windows or Mac as it was before VW12, but if you get the software for installing on either Mac or Windows with one serial number then its across the board, worldwide. Sorry, but this is wrong, and I fail to see how this protects the distributor, certainly in the case of the UK its still requires the dongle to be in to run so no chance of running multiple copies if you wanted to illegally break the software agreement anyway. What it does do is ensure, as with other software, if you change platforms, and with Intel Macs etc, there is even more likehood now, you can do so without waiting as before to license change at upgrade time. I'd say hardware/OS changes rarely fall neatly in line with the software upgrading timetable you and other software companies work to. I don't know if this is the case in the UK yet but whoever it effects its making them the poor relation to other users and this anomaly should be rectified in my opinion. Alan
  16. It was my understanding from information given by Nemetschek that with VW12 came merged licensing. The program came with both Windows and Apple versions on the disk, and the serial number worked for either. This was not the case for earlier version prior to VW12, which needed to have seperate numbers for each OS. Check with the boss man. Alan
  17. Hi domer1322 Can I ask do you buy your machines complete, never doing any "upgrading" internally ? The reason I ask it most suppliers are moving over to dual core as this seems to be the way its going for all processors - even talk of quad cores in the near future. If you buy say a single core machine you will have to buy a new motherboard if you want to upgrade to dual core later. If you buy dual core now it will give you the capability to upgrade to faster dual cores processors in the future. Unless the program is written to take advantage of dual core then it will only use one. There are however other advantages to a user in that other programs you have running will use the other processor, spreading the load as it were. So I'd say you'll see an improvement in the speed of your overall computer useage but not a huge leap in program specific terms. I've read that dual core is about roughly two thirds its equivalent "combined" single processor model. I don't think you'll see much of a speed difference between the two you've quoted, but I'd buy dual core. What you will find is the single core processor machine is alot cheaper as the manufacturers want to move these machines out of the production line/stock making way for greater dual core production capacity. If you are happy to buy "old techonology" as it were, you can save money. Laughable I know, bearing in mind this was cutting edge not so long ago !! What it does not do is allow for cheaper upgrading in the future, but then again if you are the type of person that just buys complete machines, never tinkers, pulls out motherboards, builds machines this is not an issue, hence my question. Alan
  18. Hi Bruce For really improved dimensioning and as we are now in the 21st Century, using the Metric system would solve this problem very quickly. It's got to be easy to use, the kids at my seven year old sons school use it all the time ;~) Alan
  19. Check both your print/page settings in VW, your pdf printer, and in Acrobat Reader. For example you may inadvertantly have the fit to printer margins etc. type options enabled in Reader. Pdf will print prefectly to the scale set in VW, its just a case of making sure all the right options in the procedure are enabled. Alan
  20. This command is also part of a suite of tool add ons available at http://www.vectorplugins.com/ Check it out to see if any of the others included may be of use to you. I also added the tool using VW Workspace editor so when I right click on my mouse it appears in the drop down palette along with other frequently used tools. Of course you need a multi button mouse to have a right button to press, rather than the single button Apple used to supply. Also check out www.vectordepot.com for useful plug ins such as "toogle line thickness and toggle group visability" plug in, which I use constantly and again access from my right mouse button drop down menu. Alan
  21. Very little difference in VW itself in my experience. Certainly not different enough to warrant choosing one platform over another as far as using VW goes. Knowing this I'd choose which OS to use based around the other software I use/own or may have to use, experience and knowledge of a particular OS, and if I have to interact with others, what they are using. Or even just a personal preference, if you are an individual, free to make your own choice, as VW in my opinion, will fall happily in line with either using Windows or Mac as your OS. Alan
  22. Following on from this I was wonder why we need the "2D space" anymore anyway? Perhaps somebody can explain why we need to draw in 2D when what we want to achieve from what we draw is the maximum versatility from that drawn information. What is the advantage of having this 2D/3D environment as opposed to the 3D one in Sketch Up? Surely if all you want to do is draw in 2D then keep your view as top/plan and imagine you are back on a drawing board with a single sheet of paper. Layers giving you just more sheets to use. The options to view in any other view than top/plan must surely only relate to objects drawn in 3D and serve no purpose to anybody drawing with flat 2D lines or am I missing something. Maybe it's just how I came to VW. If I wanted flat drawings I feel I'd have stayed on the drawing board. I looked at VW as a way of drawing/creating in 3D that gave me the advantage I could extract "2D" drawings from it to make the construction drawings needed to make my 3D creations. The only advantage I see is when creating hybrid symbols. I can create symbols in both 2D and 3D, then when it comes to presentation drawing rather than constructional ones I can present drawings that are clearer, graphically pleasing and easier to understand by none technical people than wireframe 3D or hidden line render views. I guess rather than lose the "2D" capability the better option would be to have dimensioning capabilities in 3D space as per SU etc. Alan
  23. The only "workaround" I can offer is to double click on your 3D object, which will bring you back into the 2D lines that you used to create your 3D object, use the dimensioning tool to get your radius etc. Then importantly, "cut" that dim from the drawing, once out of the "group", back in 3D, hit "paste in place". That will give you the dimension in place, provided you have not moved the 3D object from its original creation point. Bear in mind this dimension is a seperate object, in 2D, not connected to the 3D object in any way, but does give your construction people a measurement to work from. It's a workaround, and it can get messy if you start changing views as the 2D stuff will not change position. Bottom line is VV does not have the same dimensioning in 3D capability that Sketch Up has. You can't click and drag in 3D in other words. Even taking your 3D model and using "convert copy to lines" is not going to work on any curves, because you'll get the facet lines rather than your original arc back. There may be ways of doing this with viewports etc. but I don't use them, as yet so I don't have knowledge if this could be done in viewports. I tend to create my designs in 3D with all the required presentation visuals etc. and once the stand pitch has been won/agreed create 2D views from my model and work with those, with my little workarounds. Maybe not as effiecient as some but no compliants from the build crew. Alan
  24. Hugo I have to say Artlantis 4.5 is pretty stable for me on both Windows and Mac OSX(Tiger, with all updates). I did use to get problems when using 3.5 on an older machine, which had a lot less ram than my current ones. Both have 1.5 gb were as the old machine had only 512 mb. Maybe its a ram amount issue. I'll add that I'm exporting from VW 11.5 on the Mac, or VW 10.5 on Windows, with the files opened on both platforms using 4.5 no real problems. Alan P.S. Mike, yes after a bit of searching (I was putting in Artlantis 4.5 in one search box on the Abvent site but not changing the smaller box to 4.5 next to it. doh!!) I see that the plug ins for VW12 to 4.5 are indeed available, good news. They appear to have two sites running - www.abvent.com and www.artlantis.com to obtain these.
  25. Mike I don't think they've updated, Abvent that is, the plug in with respect to VW12. They have one for VW12 to Artlantis R which is what they are now developing rather than any further development on 4.5 etc. You could try using dxf export/import or revert back to your older VW with plug in to get it into Art 4.5. We've got the same issue with Sketch Up. No plug in for SU5 to Artlantis 4.5, again only available for Artlantis R. Guess its upgrade time again. Alan
  • Create New...