Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Stéphane

  1. On 6/19/2018 at 5:14 PM, PVA - Jim said:

    You MIGHT be able to get proper results if your base attribute colors on the tubes are the only thing controlling color. 


    Had a similar issue than @Anthony Neary, and this was the correct solution for me. Thank you.  



    On 6/19/2018 at 5:14 PM, PVA - Jim said:

    I normally recommend controlling the glow's color via the Glow shader itself directly, and leaving the base Color shader of the texture set to pure white or a warm/cool white instead. This means creating and applying more than one Glow texture, but I find it's much better at giving me control over the end result. 


    This works as well but in my case I preferred to assigned a color to each light individually, precisely because I don't want 300 glow textures. 

  2. I have done this morning additional tests, following your suggestions. 

    For some reasons, I can now export to a readable IFC from my original file again, which includes DLVPs. The only thing I did in between was hiding more layers and class. I haven't even restarted my computer or VectorWorks. I guess that an objet in one of the hidden class is corrupted OR too many informations needed to be exported. I don't know for sure. 



    2 hours ago, _c_ said:

    if I understand correctly what you did, you are exporting one building pro design layer. You assemble the buildings using one singular DLVP pro building, am I right?


    Yes, this is correct. To be slightly more accurate, the right side building is made out of 2 DLVPs : 1 DLVP for stories 1 to 4, another DLVP for story 5 (as shown in one of post above). As you can see on the pictures below, it works in IFC2X3. Surprisingly. 



    2 hours ago, _c_ said:

    About IFC 4: VW is certified for IFC 4 export, import isn't there yet. 

    More here:


    Depending on how strict your exchange requirements are, you might be better off with IFC 2x3 and since we cannot import properly what others send us, I definitely suggest you to agree upon IFC 2x3.


    Very interesting informations. I will bookmark the link. Thank you very much. 



    14 hours ago, zoomer said:

    I think it is best to check the IFC files in Solibri or similar,

    to exclude what is an VW IFC export error from VW or Revit

    import issues.


    Thank you for your suggestion, it helped me to understand the issue. I downloaded Solibri today (yes, I'm new to BIM). And here are the results :  



    1. IFC2X3 



    2. IFC4



    Important note : Last layer of Building n°1 (left), Building n°2 (mid) and Building n°3 (right) are made out of DLVPs. Several conclusions : 


    - DLVPs are actually IFC friendly, but only in version 2X3. DLVPs won't work properly in IFC4. The building you see on the foreground, is actually my Building n°2 but positioned on its source (Building n°2 is a DLVP from this foreground building). This confirms my previous theory. 


    - VW still has export issues in IFC4 (see ramp issue and DLVPs already mentioned) 


    - It seems possible to use multistories DLVPs. There is at least no graphical bugs. I guess the issue will be that my Building n°3 will be considered of having only two stories (one made out of 4 stacked slabs). But since we are drawing in BIM level 1, it's not really an issue for us. Or I don't see it yet 🙂 I believe, as @_c_ suggested it, it would be more adequate to map only one story per DLVP to do things properly. 



    Two good news : 


    - I can now send an IFC file to my engineer 

    - My engineer won't kill me 



    Thank you very much for your precious help ! The BIM shower is a bit cold but it will be ok. 

    • Like 1
  3. Progress has been made, thank to your dedication, thank you. 


    So, DLVPs from Building n°3 have been erased and replaced by regular copie/paste in place. Now it works. Conclusion : Issue comes from DLVPs. 





    I recap here my questions : 


    - How to properly set the DLVPs in order to be exported in IFC ? For some reasons, my DLVPs stay at their source position (Building n°1) in my IFC file instead of forming my Building n°3 (like in my VW file). See my posts above. @shorter @_c_


    - My test file (which consist of erasing most of my drawing) can export an IFC file and read it back, but my original cannot. Why ? Is it linked to this DLVP issue ? Is it simply because the file was too heavy (is it why @shorter you suggested to export the buildings one by one) ? Could it be that some objects are too complex (likes 3d trees) ? 


    - About the weird ramp issue, your intuition, @zoomer was correct. Well done. It is an IFC4 issue. If exported in IFC2X3 this problem doesn't occur anymore. 


    Little by little, with all of you, I start to see the light at the end of tunnel. Thank you. 

  4. @shorter, I'm sorry but I'm not sure to fully understand. I gladly admit that I am still a bit new to VW. 


    What is true space ? 


    I can say that the Z lvl setting of DLVPs is not very intuitive. If I set it to 0 or to its absolute correct Z coordinate (Z value in the IOP), then it moves completely off. I have to graphically set it back in place, but then the Z coordinate has a strange value (or negative either very high).


    Layer 4: altitude 59680 cm (above sea) (this value is set in my layer organisation window)

    Layer 1: altitude 58810 cm (above sea) (this value is set in my layer organisation window)

    my DLVP comes from Layer 1 but need to go above layer 4. What should be its Z value (in layer organisation window and in IOP) ?  0, 58810 + 1160 (equivalent to 4 stories times 4), 1160, or something else ? 


    Anyway, this is for the Z issue. How to explain the X and Y offset ? Why in my IFC file, the VLPDs stay at its orignal position ? 



  5. I believe I owe you at least some screenshots to help you understand my issue... 


    1. VWX file




    2. IFC file




    By the way, why is my ramp (dark blue object) rotated on the Y axis in my IFC file ? (The civil engineer will kill me)



  6. Thank you very much, @_c_ and @shorter, for your answers. 


    Breaking news

    After analyzing my IFC file, I discovered that some layers were duplicated 2 or 3 times on my Building n°1. The amount of duplicated layers equates the amount of missing stories that come from DLVPs. In other words : my DLVPs stack on its sources (Building n°1) instead of position themselves correctly to form my Building n°3. Why ? 


    I still have the feeling that IFC is not DLVPs friendly. Still curious how you managed, @_c_, to make it works. 


    Our discussion is now focused on DLVPs but we still don't know why my test file can export an IFC (still with some issues but at least readable) and not my original one. 


  7. 8 minutes ago, _c_ said:

    Visibilty: meant is the visibility in the class and layer list.

    A design layer that you see because it is the active layer (you are IN it), but is invisible in the layer list, won't export. Does this resolve your issue?

    Thank you for this input. I'll check this (I'm away from my computer). 

    Since we need to assign layers to stories in order to export to IFC, how do you assign DLVPs to stories ? 

    my file is organised like that : 

    - For my whole drawing, 1 layer = 1 story
    - Building n°3 is a DLVP of building n°1 which has several layers. This DLVP is on its own layer "Building n°1 DLVP

    How to assign this DLVP which has several layers "Building n°1 Floor1"; "Building n°1 Floor2"; etc... to stories ? 

    Looking forward to read you. 

  8. Hello again, 


    After further tests, I discovered that my issue might be related to Design Layer Viewport. I could imagine that IFC files hate DLVP


    I have 12 buildings. I need 3 buildings to be exported. The 9 other buildings were erased for the test. Building n°1 is a regular drawing. Building n°2 is a DLVP of another building (erased in my new test, so the DLVP is empty which means we actually don't see the building n°2). Building n°3 is a DLVP of Building n°1. 


    I exported the test file in IFC4, with the "only export visible objects" option. Interestingly enough, I can now import the IFC file again and it works. BUT : None of the DLVP are visible, neither the Building n°2 (as expected) nor the building n°3. 


    Does my first issue (see first post) occurs when "only export visible objects" is ticked and the source of a visible DLVP is not visible ? 


  9. Hello, 


    I have troubles exporting my VW file in IFC for my engineer working on Revit. 


    History of the events 

    1- I exported once an IFC file and re-imported it in VW to check if it worked. It worked. 

    2- I exported my drawing in IFC2X2, IFC2X3 and IFC4 to be sure my engineer could read it. Tried to import them back in VW : didn't work. Error or no visible geometry in the file, even if the files were heavy, respectively 595 Mo, 1 Go, 7.7 Mo.  

    3- Send them anyway to the engineer, hoping it was a VW import issue. 

    4- Engineer couldn't read any of my files and sent to me the screenshot below. 

    5- Sent to engineer an additional SAT and RVT export. Error while opening the SAT file. Missing stories and walls in the RVT file. 


    My hypothesis is that the issue comes most likely from my VW file. I'm not sure if this could be a hint but the first time I exported it, it asks me to assign layers to stories. Since my file was not organized by stories, I quickly created one and randomly picked one layer and assigned it. Surprisingly, it worked (see point 1). But then I wanted my file to be clean, so I reorganized the layers in question by stories and re-assigned them properly (?). From there, I couldn't import the exported IFC anymore (see point 2). 







    PS : 17'727'024 errors... 

  10. Thank you for your reply and for your interesting suggestion. 


    As you say, "add profile line" helps quite a bit, but in my case not exactly as I want since it doesn't differentiate structural and non-structural elements. 

    The "merge sections", even with "create structural and non-structural groups" is not an option neither because it overrides the material fills in any case (even if we give no fills to the section styles). 


    It would still have been better if the "merge objects with same fill" options would work properly (sorry for this truism). 🙂 

  11. Hello, 


    I am drafting a section viewport and explored a bit different ways of doing it. My concern here is when we tick "merge objects with same fill". As shown in the picture bellow, some lines vanish (too many). Is it a bug or did I miss something ? How to fix this ? Second picture shows the same "detail" without ticking the box in order to help you to understand my issue. 





  12. Thank you zoomer for your input and as you suggested it, the workaround here is to offset the walls by a "little bit" to force the lines to show up. 


    What I did was pretty straight forward and solved my issue

    - select the walls 

    - set bottom offset at 0.1 (tiny bit) in the IOP 

    - set top offset at -0,1 (tiny bit) in the IOP 

    - Eurêka 


    I could imagine that it works as well if you offset the walls horizontally, but in my case it was on one hand more work and on another one I was afraid that it would messed up my attraction points. 


    If you don't want them to appear, then you are doomed to be accurate. Bad news for the hasty drawers 🙂 


    My walls and slabs are in the same class. So I also tried to move my walls in another class but it didn't help. Suggestion here for the VW team : Being able to say that if the objects are on the same class AND on the same plan, then merge them. Or not. If they are not on the same class, never merge them, even if they are on the same plan. Like an additional tick box in the Section VP IOP. 


    PS: I am sorry if my English is not Shakespearian enough.  

    • Like 1
  13. This story is not finished yet 🙂 


    When I render sections with realistic RW styles another issue occurs : Some lines vanish. I would need help on this one please. 


    So, we have walls that line up with slabs. Sometimes a line appear, which is what I want and sometimes it doesn't appear, as shown on the picture attached. How to control this ? How this that work ? 


    Do objects on the same plan merge together ? In this case, does that mean that some of my walls are not perfectly lined up with my slabs (due to these kind of micro drawing inaccuracies) ?





  14. Have rendered the section viewport in realistic RW style, the issue still occurs. 


    Edit : 

    Actually, after having done some tests,  this issue occurs 

    - when "artistic lines" is ticked in realistic RW style 

    - if you chose "cartoon style" in artistic RW style 


    The workaround is simply to avoid the artistic RW styles (which also cause shadows issues in section VP), untick "artistic lines" in realistic RW style and use instead a foreground render "lines only" or "lines and hidden lines". 

    • Like 1
  15. Hello there, 


    So I am still exploring VW2020 and how to do things properly. On my section viewports, unwanted diagonals appear on some of my walls or roofs, as if VW tried to triangulate them. On this issue, I have read other posts suggesting to un-join walls or to redo them, but it didn't helped me. 


    The image bellow was rendered in cartoon style with no other renders (not even lines or hidden lines). These problematic lines are not on the section plan and they cannot attract the cursor, they are really just generated by the cartoon render style. 







  16. Hello, 


    Small post just to mention a bug (or at least a weird behavior) while using the railing tool ("Barrière" in French). This issue occurs randomly. The first three railings can be created as expected and then suddenly the fourth one will go crazy. See picture bellow. 



  17. Hello, 


    I'm new to Vectorworks but something I found very counter-intuitive (even frustrating) was the fact that you could hit the option key to temporarily duplicate objects while using Translation but not Rotation neither Mirror. Hence my suggestion here : to extend this mechanism to other common tools like Rotation and Mirror. This would allow us to draw more efficiently, with less clicks. 


    Should we vote ?  







    • Like 4
  • Create New...