Scott C. Parker

Each light has a "circuit name" (fanout name) and a "circuit number" (leg#) field. A worksheet will work based on using these two fields plus any other fields you need. The ones you list as spares won't say "spare" as they'll be empty.

Since the accessories are coded to land on top of lighting symbols, the only suggestion I have right now is to duplicate them and make your own versions, cutting out the 2D parts. We'll give it some thought, but it would be a while before anything happens since editing the symbols is a valid alternative.

Please post a sample file so we can play with it.

Hi @Martin Benesh it turns out that 2D geometry of accessories is hard coded to sit on top of the 2D geometry of lighting devices. This video shows a workaround of editing the 2D geometry of the stand so it looks as if it is sitting under the head of the light ng unit. I've also included the file. Accessory Sample for Forum .vwx AccessoryUnderLight.mp4

Can you post an example file so we can see what you're doing and play with the tag?

@Martin Benesh Can you post an example file with a couple of fixtures and accessories to play with? A quick sketch of what you're looking to do would be helpful as well.

Have you tried changing the zoom tool's mode to interactive? What happens? I haven't tried it with a stylus.

Hello @Cristiano Alves It's possible @JustinVH is waiting to receive some sample files for testing. He mentioned needing files in his last reply in this thread. Do you have files you can share?

Here's how to replace the hook. I didn't try changing the hook symbol name after I edited it. let me know if changing the name will still associate the hook with a different hoist. If it doesn't, I'll inquire further. ReplaceHook.mp4

Hi Peter, I was intrigued by this and played around for a while. Apparently, truss crosses can only have one location where the truss meets in Vectorworks 2024. When I changed the tool to insert a drop instead of a truss cross, it worked once I had a proper offset. I had to change the minimum length for the down leg in the bridle preferences to one mm before using the tool. Here's a video I made to explain the process to our programmers. You can skip to after 2:30 to see success. insertdropparalelltruss.mp4 I'm submitting a request to allow multiple trust crosses so that the lower truss does not need to shift down at all. However, we would expect it to shift to account for the spacing of the coupling device.

Hi Peter, Yes, my truss were directly from the VW libraries. I confess I didn't seek out the same truss you used from our library during testing. The truss in the drawing you shared has had some custom changes made and I didn't want to mess with them. All truss in the VW library *should* be able to have some braceworks calculations applied. When we have the structural info from manufacturers, we get more info about flexibility. When we don't, we treat them as static systems. Hence the Grey and Green results. I'm not sure what you're asking here. I made frames, and they worked.

In this example, the strip light is aligned to the left and all others are centered. If the strip were assigned to be centered with the others, it would knock all the others far away from the left border box .

@tbexon, Widen the Spotlight Equip Summary Key dialog and use the Alignment column. Let me know if you have issues.

Update 4.1 is out and offers the centering you're looking for. Once you update to the latest release, please test again and let us know how things go. You may need to update and/or rebuild your summary keys. We fixed an issue with them between updates 3 & 4.

@Peter Telleman I don't have a direct answer other than it's something to do with the modified truss symbols you're using. I played for a while trying to figure out what but I failed. To confirm the calculations would work outright, I built two similar frames using Tomcat and Christie truss. They both calculated as expected. Here's the file I played with. Your custom symbols might not match anymore as I was making edits. Tomcat is grey as we don't have the structural info. The Christie frame is green as we do have the structural info. vertical trussframe.vwx

If you widen the report window, you'll see the lights are not connected to the truss system. Braceworks will only report on items that are fully snapped to the supporting truss system. We have a few videos here that would be helpful to take a look at. https://university.vectorworks.net/course/index.php?mycourses=0&tagfilter[category]=content+category-5-entertainment&tagfilter[type]=0&tagfilter[difficulty]=0&search=braceworks&langfilter[]=0#coursestab Basically, you have placed the lights along the front of the truss, but not actually snapped them to the truss..

Please post a sample file for us to look at. Might be those lights are not attached to the supporting structure.

Please share a file so I can play. What release/build are you working in?

@tragge8 What happens when you place a summary key in a new drawing? The underlaying file you're using was originally built five years ago. Not that this should cause issues, but it does on occasion. Let me know please.

We are hunting a bug and this file helps. For now, I recommend placing a viewport of a summary key in your rigging design layer over the title block area. The Summary key is working as we wish in Design layers. Sorry, no; you can't place viewports inside the title block style. It'll have to sit over the title block on sheet layers for now.

Please post a test file so we can see your settings.

It sounds more like you're looking for an instrument schedule based on each truss. If you create a report and use the Criteria window to limit the worksheet to each truss, you'll get what I think you're looking for.

I'm happy to take a look if you can post a sample file. Adding class to the filter is on our list of fixes we need to do.

I played with your file and changed the number shown below to 10mm and it all worked. It's like a forgiveness setting. 🙂 Keep in mind that it can get you in trouble when two truss systems you don't want to be connected together are within the accuracy limits.

Did you do the delete thing and insert into a design layer process I mentioned? I'm bug hunting and if this process works, it's helpful to know.