hollister design Studio

I saved the file as a 2025 and Opened it there - AI Visualizer in 2025 works fine. The composition image works as the composition and the style image works as the style. I guess until vector works gets this figured out I won't be using the new 2026 visualizer - seems to be compromised.

Hey @Dave Donley I’m having trouble getting the Visualizer to apply a style reference image to the project image I want rendered. Instead of re‑imagining my project in the style of the reference image, Vectorworks keeps modifying the reference image itself-no matter how I arrange the inputs. When the Visualizer first launched, this workflow was straightforward (as was the UI...). It focused on the geometry on screen, and any uploaded images acted strictly as prompts or style references. Now, the behavior seems reversed. Here’s what’s happening: Whether I place my project image in Image Prompt 1 or Image Prompt 2, the Visualizer only edits the style reference image. Even with very simple prompts (e.g., “monotone pencil sketch in manga style”) or highly explicit prompts that forbid using the second image as anything but a style cue, the result is the same. The model continues to render my style reference image—sometimes even in the style of older prompts I’m no longer using. I’ve also tried swapping the order of the images (style reference as 1, project image as 2). It still only modifies the style reference. Here’s an example of a more detailed prompt that still fails: "Use Image Prompt 1 as the primary subject and composition. Re‑imagine it faithfully, keeping the forms, proportions, spatial layout, and key details. Apply Image Prompt 2 only as a stylistic reference. Match its architectural rendering style: black‑and‑white tonal range, minimal color cues, crisp linework, soft global illumination, and restrained contrast. Do not alter the core scene from Image Prompt 1—only restyle it to reflect the monochrome, architectural, minimally colored aesthetic of Image Prompt 2." At this point I’m wondering whether the Visualizer has changed how it interprets two‑image prompts, or whether there’s a setting or workflow I’m missing. Has anyone else run into this? And is there a current method to force the Visualizer to treat Image 1 as the content and Image 2 as style only?

Prompt: "Create a seamless texture of travertine tiles that have a bricklayed pattern and are all rectangular. all tiles are the same size all tiles are the same rectangular shape." Vector works: 8th or 9th try with multiple different wordings - honestly this is the best I could get... Photoshop: same prompt as the above - first try with no additional editing.

I’m running into a strange issue with one of my files and I’m hoping someone can take a look. All of my sheet layers are set to Arch C (24×18). But when I Print to PDF or Export to PDF, the first three sheets come out wrong: they get split into multiple smaller pages (8.5×11 or some other tiling). All the other sheets in the file export correctly at 24×18. Here’s what I’ve already tried: Double‑checked Page Setup and Printer Setup for each sheet Verified sheet layer page size is set to Arch C Deleted the first three sheets and rebuilt them on fresh blank sheets Restarted Vectorworks and my machine I’ve also checked the Page Setup → Pages section for many of the sheets, and I honestly don’t understand what I’m seeing. Vectorworks Help says: “Specify the number of pages in the horizontal direction” “Specify the number of pages in the vertical direction” But in this file, almost every sheet has different numbers, and none of them are 1 × 1, which is what I would expect for a single 24×18 sheet. I can’t tell what those numbers actually represent or why they vary so much from sheet to sheet. If someone can explain what that setting really controls — and whether it might be related to my PDF tiling issue — that would be extremely helpful. I’m attaching: The File CM45-DD-rev 14.vwx A PDF showing the incorrect output 2026.02.17 Working.pdf If anyone can open the file and see what’s going on with the page setup or sheet layer settings, I’d really appreciate it. Thanks in advance for any help.

@Katarina Ollikainen any info on this? Inconsistencies like this cause disruptions in work flows...

OK - I finally looked into the "section style" class - I don't use 'section style' as a class name so I didn't look for it - I use '00-section style' instead. VW created its default class at some point - and used the square fence as the line style. I really wish the user could stop VW from creating classes by it self - or that we could at least make it use our default names. ...I can't count how many times I've had to get rid of "Landscape-Features"

Thanks @Tom W. When I unchecked "add profile line", the line renders as desired. And if I Set the 'attribute class' to any class besides the default 'none', the adapts the layers line style. The odd thing is if I reset it to 'none', it does not show the square fence" line style anymore. And the 'Square Fence' is not the line style for the none class. Also when I looked in the Organization Menu, i didn't see any class with the sqare fence line style. So I have no idea where it's getting that from. Any thoughts? - here is a file to look over. wall issue.vwx

Here is my typical advanced section properties menu:

I’m running into a wall‑section display issue I can’t track down. In one file (File A), every wall section displays with the same line style (“square fence”), regardless of layer, class, wall style, or viewport settings. If I copy those same walls into a blank file (File B), the section line style behaves normally — it follows the class or wall style. But if I create a new wall in File B and paste it back into File A, the section line style immediately switches back to “square fence.” File (A): same wall copied into File (B): Class overrides don’t help. I can override the fill just fine, but the line style refuses to change from “square fence” no matter what I set. Has anyone run into a file‑wide override or corruption that forces all wall section line styles to a single pattern? Any ideas on where to look would be appreciated.

Update two didn't fix this for me either. As far as I can tell in 2026 the only way to access 3D attributes is to click on the existing tree settings in the OIP. But you Can't click on that but if there are multiple trees selected. In 2025 at the bottom of the OIP There was the 2D properties and 3D properties buttons that were clickable with multiple objects selected. And then within the menu you have the option of selecting "to this object only", "to all objects on all layers", etc I can't find similar options in 2026 with the new 2D and 3D properties being placed inside the existing tree settings menu. NOTE: They did fix the odd behavior I was having where canopy diameters only changed diameter in the X dimension leaving the Y dimension static... this made almost all of my trees weirdly elongated along X - so glad that got fixed!

@klinzey I do have two monitors, a laptop and a second monitor. Laptop scale is set to 250% (the "recommended" setting) Second Monitor scale is set to 150% (also the recommended setting) Both are at their recommended resolution. And yes, after growing each time, they do eventually reset to default. @Pat Stanford Video driver did need to be updated as of Oct 15th - I've done this and will check back in if that fixes the issue. I do not have this issue with 2025

Possible bug to report: With the release of Vectorworks 2026, I've been experiencing issues with the Existing Tree Tool. Major Issue 1: Canopy Diameter Adjustment Only Affects X Dimension One of the most noticeable problems is the behavior of the Canopy Diameter property when adjusted via the OIP. Currently, changing the value only affects the X dimension of the tree's canopy, while the Y dimension remains unchanged. The Z dimension appears to function correctly, reflecting height adjustments as expected. I've created a screen grab video that demonstrates this issue for reference. Major Issue 2: DBH Changes in OIP Result in Incorrect Fractional Values Another issue concerns the DBH attribute. When attempting to update the DBH from the OIP, the value converts to an incorrect fractional number rather than the intended measurement. The only reliable way to update the DBH is through the Existing Tree menu, which is less direct than previous workflows. 20251106-2102-19.1177466.mp4 Screen Grab Video: Secondary Issues: 1# - First Branch Height Missing from OIP In Vectorworks 2025, users could quickly adjust the first branch height directly in the OIP. With the 2026 update, this property is no longer available in the OIP, requiring users to open the settings menu for each individual tree object. This change adds extra steps to the workflow and reduces efficiency, particularly when managing large numbers of trees. Oddly, the new first branch direction IS included in the OIP… #2 - Inability to Adjust Multiple Trees Simultaneously Previously, it was possible to select and adjust properties for multiple existing tree objects at once, streamlining batch edits. The 2026 update appears to have removed this selection option, forcing users to adjust each tree individually. This limitation can significantly slow down project work, especially for landscape architects and planners handling complex sites. I’ve attached the screen grab video and a sample file Existing Tree Issue.vwx Existing Tree Issue.vwx

@Pat Stanford The first thing it did was restart vectorworks, then restart Windows. The menus still kept behaving oddly. It's been a couple of days and it comes back with restarts every day.

Every time I get a warning menu the size of the popup increases. Once they are larger than the screen size, I can't reduce them and they just keep getting larger ...and then all of a sudden, for no apparent reason they pop back to the normal size. This isn't a workflow issue as the relevant areas are in the upper left-hand corner and are always accessible - but I thought it might be a bug Here is the resource name conflict warning - taller than my screen and almost the width of my second monitor.

@alva Sorry, I haven't had this behavior since the 2023 update. I never did figure out what was happening