Jump to content

Christiaan

Moderator
  • Posts

    9,482
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Christiaan

  1. It would, great! Just have to talk NBS into the ability to create multi-column A1 PDFs. Thanks.
  2. We'd like very much to be able to reference text-based documents into VectorWorks. We use a specification writer in the UK called NBS Building (National Building Specification), which is very good. The problem comes when we want to get these specifications into VectorWorks, which we need to do because many contractors and building control authorities like to have the spec in the same format as the drawings, instead of a separate A4 booklet. So, currently, in order to get the text into VectorWorks, we export the specificaton from NBS Building (which outputs to an A4, with a new section on each page) to PDF and then copy and paste the text into a VectorWorks document (pasting from PDF seems to hold onto the most formatting). So far this is not too onerous. The real problem arises in the fact that there is a disincentive to *update* the spec, and I've come across people trying to avoid updating the spec because it's so time consuming and onerous (and I do sympathise with them). Instead of simply updating the specification and clicking a button, you need to update the spec, then export it, then copy and paste the relevant bits into the correct place (all the while dealing with text formatting peculiarities) while ensuring that you've updated the correct bits and haven't overwritten anything by accident. Or you export and copy and paste the whole document again. The ideal situation for us would be for NBS Building to be able to save to ODF (i.e. OpenDocument) at A1 or A0 and then for us to be able to reference this into VectorWorks. This would allow us to quickly change the spec and then simply update the reference. Unfortunately VectorWorks doesn't support ODF and NBS Building neither saves to or exports to ODF (yet, I'm putting in a request). What NBS Building does support however is RTF, PDF & TXT, so I'd request that VectorWorks support the ability to reference one or all of these formats. All I need to do then is get NBS to support the the ability to create A1/A0 pages with multiple column layouts, which it currently doesn't. A lot of work to do P.S. the reason we'd like ODF support is to ensure our documents are as accessible as possible into the future.
  3. I'm partial to this argument, except I'm dubious about how soon "soon-to-be-obsolete" is, at least in the UK.
  4. We use colour in our planning drawings, but our construction drawings are black and white. One reason being the ability to photocopy and not lose any fidelity.
  5. My money's on Computers Unlimited screwing up. Of course that's without a shred of evidence, but it is based on two observations: 1) In the five years I've lived in the UK I'm yet to come across a company that demonstrates any form of competence. (e.g. 4 months with internet down at work, 5 weeks and counting trying to get a washing machine fixed, 6 months trying to get a replacement DVD writer, 3 months with cable TV down and counting, etc., the list is endless) 2) Computers Unlimited has it's fingers in a lot of pies; VectorWorks is just one of many software titles it distributes, as opposed, say, to the likes of OzCAD In Aus and Megabits in NZ, both of which are dedicated to distributing and localising VectorWorks in their respective countries and do a good job of it. Although CU do put on a reasonably good VectorWorks conference, I'll give them that.
  6. That's fine. As long as it's not the tail wagging the dog.
  7. They're different aspects of the same thing. Conventions facilitate communication. As a component of the wall tool you either show it or you don't. We want to show insulation. We just want to show it a certain way. It's not a matter of prettying drawings, it's a matter of convention. You just took the words out of my mouth. Why should it be different? Why can't we have wavy lines? We don't have any Bill working for us. What we do have is major contractors who don't want their staff to have to learn a new set of conventions every time they pick up a different architect's set of drawings when there are age-old industry conventions already in place. Don't know. Does it matter?
  8. We use a 0?/90? hatch for our rigid insulation, 45?/45? for our blockwork and 2x45? for our brickwork. All of which are conventional. Of course we also use 0?/90? for our insulation batts too, because VectorWorks walls don't handle wavy line insulation. One matter of communication is consistency across drawings, so it's not a nonsense to want to use wavy lines in our 1:50s as well as our details. Another matter of communication is convention, so it's not a nonsense to want to use wavy lines instead of some VectorWorks programmer friendly method either.
  9. I think Michael means wavy insulation (i.e. batts) as opposed to a cross hatch.
  10. RAL is coming very soon apparently. Call them what you want, but you surely can't deny they're time savers? Have to agree here. The v12/12.5 website/marketing material was lightyears ahead of v13 efforts.
  11. Can anyone explain why this is an established standard? Is it really one we want to hold on to? I actually prefer my wall hatching to look the same in sections and plans because it avoids confusion. I have a wishlist item for this: http://techboard.nemetschek.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=84906 I think I'll still be using viewport sections as a design tool only, but wall components will at least make it easier to read, which is a step in the right direction. Still there's much in v13 that justifies upgrading besides wall sections.
  12. For the cost of an upgrade I'm flabbergasted. If there was ever an easy sell to those holding the purse strings at my work it's v13. Co-ordinate rotation, object selection highlighting, saved toolbar preferences/settings, object sensitive contextual menus, automatic object centre when editing, duplicate by points, design layer viewports, true file referencing, CAD management stuff like sending symbols to an unopened file, edit multiple items in a wall, export to AutoCAD 2008, improved navigation between viewports/design layers/annotations, wall component classes, black and white viewports, Mac OS X spotlight integration, wall components in sections, unlimited colours and paint systems integration, object-based opacity. final gather rendering, support for 3Dconnexion SpaceNavigator. None of these are BIM features. It's difficult to estimate the amount of time they will save (and how much more enjoyable the app will be to use), but I'm picking in our office we will probably save about 1 day of man hours a week. That means in roughly a month we'd have pay-back on the cost of the upgrade... which is, frankly, phenomenal. How you conclude that v13 "does not deliver that much" is beyond me.
  13. Have you tried the SpacePilot Mark? http://www.3dconnexion.com/3dmouse/spacepilot.php
  14. I watched a demo of it at the conference in London and it seemed to me that the 3D part of the name is a misnomer, i.e. it's just as useful to pass panning and zooming off to the left hand in 2D as it is in 3D. At the moment the only downside I can see is that if you use keyboard shortcuts you'll be switching between the navigator and the keyboard with your left hand a lot. I haven't tried it yet so I don't know how much of a problem this is. They have another model which includes programmable buttons to get around this problem but you can only use 2 of the 8 or so buttons when using it on a Mac, apparently, because of a limitation in mouse driver technology (but they say they're working on this; maybe this limitation will be gone in Leopard?).
  15. It's an additional kind of mouse for your non-dominant hand: http://www.3dconnexion.com/3dmouse/spacenavigator.php One analogy is it's the equivalent to holding a potato with one hand and peeling it with the other, instead of peeling, placing and turning the potato with one hand (which is what we essentially do when we use one mouse to pan, select, zoom, etc.)
  16. I've just purchased one too (still waiting for VW 13 to turn up tho). Where is the 4-button interface for changing modes situated in VW?
  17. So how are the (U.S.) early adopters finding v13.0? Any major problems yet? Still trying to get our first copy.
  18. But who is anyone to suggest others are inept simply because they themselves have got used to a certain way of doing something, and why should others have to follow in your footsteps? You've taken the humane concept of the designed tool (one that Apple software engineer's clearly understand) and completely turned it on its head into the inhumane; instead of designing the tool to fit the human you want to change the human to fit the tool. Again, nothing in the concept precludes this. It's worth doing. It can be quite an eye-opener, especially with new users. You soon realise that things you've become used to over time can represent considerable barriers to others.
  19. No, it's a bug. There are a number of plugin objects with this problem I think. Another off the top of my head is the 'Simple Elevator' and maybe the Stair tool.
  20. Maybe you don't watch many inexperienced users operating VectorWorks? Of course the same question can be posed in the other direction, and was posed by me in my first post. What's the big advantage in having a *non-unified* interface, especially when you have the likes of tabs and tears? Flexibility they tell me, but a unified window need not be inflexible, so does slightly more flexibility really justify the window management problem inherent in floating windows? The only major advantage I can see is that it's the status quo and I really doubt anyone, including yourself, would be arguing for floating windows if the status quo was a unified interface. I think, yes, with out a doubt vision is lacking if you can't see how easily transferable this interface is to nearly any productivity application. The TextEdit/Quake comparison is a little, shall we say, hyperbolic. I didn't post them as examples of unified window CAD apps, I posted them as examples of very nice unified windowed apps that could just as easily be floating palette apps. There are modelling apps out there with unified windows; Modo being one of them. Maybe, but I'd be willing to guess that if NNA coded it they'd know immediately if they had a winner on their hands or not.
  21. All your queries are answered (not necessarily to your satisfaction) in the previous posts Charles.
×
×
  • Create New...