Jump to content

shorter

Member
  • Content Count

    1,440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

344 Spectacular

5 Followers

About shorter

  • Rank
    1000 Club

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    CAD and BIM Management, Vectorworks Sales, Customisation, and Training
  • Homepage
    www.stevenshorter.com www.modelity.co.uk https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenshorter
  • Location
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Transferring IFC data from one symbol to the next (using the eyedropper tool) works for that instance but not for all instances thereafter. What would be useful would be to have an option to transfer IFC data from one symbol to another and have it behave in the same way as though I had selected the symbol in the resource manager and set it's IFC data via the right-click menu.
  2. It would be very useful if when we create our own components as symbols, to be able to select all symbols and set IFC category to all symbols selected, rather than one by one.
  3. I have long since thought that the abiloty to run the mechanisms to remove autoclassing are too deeply embedded or convoluted to be used reliably by mere mortals. A pulldown menu with the 'preferred' CAD standard selected from a list would be so useful, in a similar way that a saved view can be selected from it's menu. We sort of have that in the DWG export, but we also need the option to work in BS1192, or not; ISO13657, or not, etc, and be able to flip between the two. Obviously it would mean setting up an xml or mapping table somewhere and that's usually the problem, because that's quite a lot of effort, and way most need someone to manage it and do it for them, i.e. mugs like me!
  4. Can we please separate these settings more distinctly, or have an alert if anyone clicks on 'Choose' rather than 'Add' when they want to add a workgroup folder? I have lost count how many times I have asked a user to click 'Add' and they click 'Choose' instead and end up dumping all their settings and certificates etc onto the workgroup folder.
  5. Do you not use class filters, Kevin? We always prefix or tag classes, and then set up filters to display only our classes and hide the rest.
  6. Separate Class and Layer Mapping and let Class Mapping use the same XML as DWG export, and give option to use mapping table in IFC export too Title says it all. Why do we need to maintain two mapping tables; one for the 'Class and Layer Mapping' and one for 'DWG Export'. And we rarely have to map layers, so please separate the two, or a button the the Class and Layer Mapping command to 'Ignore Layers'. If xml is the way most dialogs are going, the Class and Layer Mapping command should use the same mapping table. Also think it is time to deprecate 'Standard Naming' and 'Auto-Classing' using 'VWArch' classes. And then, add an option to use the same mapping table when exporting IFC. Thanks.
  7. When deleting classes, a search field or filter selection option would be useful. Deleting a class at the moment presents the full list of classes making selection of destination class time-consuming.
  8. I will add to this by saying IF we were able to map the class description or tag to the IFC layer, via data mapping, that would do nicely.
  9. Hello We have a class mapping function now in DWG export, which is great, and long overdue, but we really need one for IFC export too. EIther that or some way to map another field or concatenate other fields in the Data Mapping tool to the 'Layer' field in the IFC. Currently this seems to be automated, and class = IFC layer. We have had to resort to a script to perform the class mapping prior to IFC export, but think it would be useful for the software to do it for you. The 'other' software uses the mapping table for DWG export for IFC export too. These would seem to be the most sensible solution.
  10. In answer to my question... no, layer and class descriptions are not available as filters. question is ‘why not?’ This would be hugely beneficial. also tag filters definitely need to be additive or capable of being defined by keyword
  11. Ps I don’t recall if it’s possible but if you are able to add a description to the layer would that help in this particular instance or not?
  12. Additive filters would be very useful, similar to how the custom selection tool works. specify one tag and then show more options and add a second. Class filters would also benefit from this.
  13. Hello Would anyone find it useful if filters had an option to 'hide' all layers or classes not captured by the filter? For example, when filtering layers by keyword 'Structure' for example, it would be useful if all layers that don't have the keyword 'Structure' were hidden. A checkbox when creating the filter would be great.
  14. But yes a script would be useful if it does not mess things up like the class mapping tools do currently.

 

7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114

 

© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

×
×
  • Create New...