Francois Levy

I have Vectorworks BIM workshops coming up in Los Angeles, the Bay Area, and Pittsburgh: http://is.gd/1dcIX

I am seeing one of my students with a similar problem (VW 2209 Student Version, Windows). Is this a known issue with the student version, to avoid circumventing watermarking?

I strongly agree that direct editing of the model from a Viewport and especially a Section Viewport is an essential direction VectorWorks should take.

Did I miss something, or are stairs now only in 3D? I seem to have misplaced the draw in 2D only option. Can anyone set me straight?

Does anyone know of a script or worksheet function which will return the Z-coordinate of a specified PIO? Thanks in advance!

I seem to be missing the Site Modifier as an option of object types to convert to in 'Modify/Convert Objects from Polyline...' I usually work in Designer, and am on a colleague's workstation with Architect installed. Is 'Convert Polyline to Site Modifier' a Landmark/Designer only command?

Yes. Does that help, or hinder?

I've noticed that from time to time textures which had been applied at a 90? rotation to extrusions will flip back to 0?. Is anyone else experiencing this? Is this a known bug? Anyone know what triggers this behavior? Unfortunately this is one of those that's hard to predict or reproduce ...

Hi Pete, I don't entirely agree. Individual objects need not be selectable in the VP window; there could just be a toggle in the classes column (next to visibility) for "VP overrides object attributes". Another approach would be to make objects selectable within the Annotations Space itself (that's a taller order of course). I don't know how much engineering effort is required. We can already override graphic attributes by class; it seems a small thing to allow them by object. But of course seemingly trivial features can actually involve daunting coding. As to your larger point: I think these kinds of requests actually have everything to do with making VPs "work". In private conversations with NNA, I like many others I am sure have pointed out that there exist in VPs graphically conflicted interests, borne out of the fact that an object may be required to appear one way in plan, another in elevation, yet another in section, and be represented in yet another way in a rendering. Overriding attributes in VPs in effect allows me to assign multiple attributes to the same class. I suppose another way to go about it would be to give every class multiple (user-defined) attribute panes. Each class could have a plan appearance, elevation appearance, section characteristics, etc. In essence that already exists to some degree with classes assigned both RenderWorks textures and 2D graphic attributes. I think your caution is valid, though, that such systems could collapse under their own weight and be either buggy or unusable. Ultimately, I'd like to see "smart" elevations and sections (i.e., VPs) that "know" to lighten line weights as elements recede in the background (preferable controlled by a simple slider by the user).

It would be useful to be able to assign a pattern to hatch lines.

While class attributes of objects can be overridden at the Viewport, Viewports cannot override any "forced" attributes of objects. That should be an option in Viewports/Classes...

The subject line says it all: a readily-accessible button in the Object Info palette that converts selected object(s) to polygons (saves going to the menu). Maybe also Compose and Decompose?

Personally I like white and have for years. My colleague seems to think black is easier on her eyes, and that a soft grey or Borco mint might be even better. To each her own I suppose.

A user in our office has requested a background color other than black or white. Does anyone know of a plug-in or script that allows customization of the BG color? I am not, of course, referring to RenderWorks layer backgrounds. One sloppy workaround would be to have a huge rectangle of a desired color on a dedicated layer, with a Saved View that would activate that layer. Not perfect though ... Should I x-post this to Wish List?

Class overrides only work in viewports if the original object was drawn by class. If you have a wall class and set it to a .30 mm line weight, but manually assign a .50 mm line to a given instance, then the viewport will be unable to override the manually-assigned line weight. That might be what you are experiencing. Until viewports intelligently recognize depth, I simply force nearly all objects in the viewport to a light line, then trace over objects I want to "pop" with heavier lines, generally in the annotations space. Still requires manual fiddling, but still faster than the old Cut 2D/3D Sections in most cases. Now if only viewports would update faster ...

Well, I'm only asking for the same ones you already have in the 2D tool to be available in the 3D joist. It struck me that they are in one place, and not the other. Obviously those are different tools, but ... W, angle, channel, tube pretty much captures it for me.

Sorry, not LGMF. I meant the same standard steel channels that are in the menu of choices for the 2D steel channel PIO.

I for one would like to see EPS vector import as a built-in function of VW, especially given the new strategic alliance between Nemetschek AG and Adobe. I imagine lots of architectural graphics people (and other industries) would love clean vector importing of EPS, PDF, etc. Also, one might get a background file and not have Illustrator, so copy and paste isn't always an option. Likewise, if given an EPS file, it may not be possible to convert to PDF prior to importing. And thanks for the heads-up on the plug-in; I had missed that one.

I apologize if this has been covered in previously. I've noticed that I have the option of choosing from a menu of standard W-section profiles for steel joists, but that option is greyed out when I specify the joist is a C-section. Robert, should I post that to BugTrack, or is that simply an incomplete feature not worthy of a BT?

In producing a DD set for a 17-unit multifamily project, I (like many other users) have a bit of a conundrum with respect to scheduling doors and windows. As many are doubtless aware, there are the following options, (among others): A) Attach data to the PIOs from the data pane of the settings dialogue box, and use the ID Label tool on the drawing B) Use a custom key symbol with all door and window data attached to it (old school); C) "Hand-build" a schedule as a worksheet with no dynamic relation to the actual doors and windows We could debate the merits of the above all day. My particular issue is with labeling under options A or B, with respect to Viewports. If I go with B then I can just plop my key outside the annotation space right in the sheet layer, or in the annotation space. I should probably also mention that many of the doors and windows are embedded within symbols representing the individual apartment units, further complicating matters. That might be a strong argument for option A. Either way, I have to tunnel down to the design layer and click on the PIO to get its information (width, height, head height, etc.), assuming I don't have it committed to memory. So it would seem that in the case of ID Labels (tool-based or homebrew symbols) it's best to label the door or window ON THE DESIGN LAYER, which violates the logic of Viewports. There is a similar issue with associative dimensions. So, are users annotating on the design layer? Is there an aspect of Viewport annotation space that I am missing?

Well sure. I like the blue background and slow spin on the first one.

No trouble at all--it's fun to figure things out. It's little tricks like this (and 2d polygon clipping in DTMs, to name another) that make the program sing in the right hands; if these functions are documented then everybody benefits. And thanks for monitoring!

Ah I think I go it. By making the 3d circle somewhat SMALLER than the model, and selecting the 3d circle ONLY (two important details), I've managed to export a view of the model with little white space. My guess is that as with static exports, VW adds white space automatically. Thanks Islandmon for leading me to this. Dave, may I request better documentation on this procedure in future manuals? Shall I cross-post to Wish List?

Thanks for the effort! I do feel a little dizzy spinning around in that cube. Can yo let me out now? The extruded circle you use does in effect define the boundaries of the model, but that cuts both ways. In the sample file you included, removing the 3d circle enlarges the model. I thought my particular problem might have been in having objects (both 2D and 3D) in invisible classes, but even after removing everything the model still renders with heaps of white space. Dave, if you are monitoring this, may I send you the file?

I've tried adjusting the model to be centered (0,0,0) on the page, selected a circular 3D poly, changed the active layer scale, changed page size. None of these measures make any difference whatsoever; all QTVRs (not VRMLs BTW) come out the same: small model, lots of white space. Any other suggestions?