Ramon PG

Confirmed. A-OK. One minor caveat. translatring to any version other than ACAD 2004/2005 may result in stuff like dimensions misplaced or missing.

All I can tell you is that reverting the layer names to what appears in the model setup window will show the heights again. I am upgrading to 10.3.9 to see what happens. It's not a big deal if you figure it out, but Tech Support didn't have a clue...

FYI (excuses for those who already know this) If, after setting the Model, you change layer names like Mod-Floor-1 to Floor-1 (like I id) going back to model setup to tweak anything will result in all settings appearing as zero. Even if the Model looks OK. You can either change the layer names back or set the layer height thru the Layer Setup window. And stop from wasting a couple of hours trying to figure it out. Using 11.5.1 Mac OS 10.3.8

quote: Originally posted by Robert Anderson: Chris, try using a filled double line with a fine pen to get the look you want. Ramon, are you on a Mac? Yes, is that a bad thing?

Mine are square. How can I get them rounded?

I sometimes too get this strange behabior in Model; some checked layers do not appear. Although I'm not 100% sure, I think it happens when I have individually changed, and forgot, the "dissapering" layer's view from the standard Top/Plan to another view.

quote: Originally posted by Christiaan: Why do different localised versions have different capabilities? I've noticed the Aussie/New Zealand version has excellent window modelling capabilities due to WinDoor too. Is it due to licencing issues or internatlisation problems that these improvements are not distributed world wide? I may be a darn capitalist, but if I have a product that someone in China wants, let him/her pay for it and I'll sell it. You could sell it for a small premium outside the country of origin, but sell it. I think VW and us users should get all the help we can from these great tools developed around the world. Could fear of piracy be the issue?

You could also make a simple polygon in seconds. Then tuck it away in some AREA class or something. BTW, is there a way of adding the areas in the Room Schedule?

quote: Originally posted by islandmon: ... write an Applescript to handle the back-ups based on the install log file(s). On OSX you should avoid drag&drop for archive because of invisibles & symbolic links. I believe Sync Pro can be programmed to do just that. Iguess I'll be trying it very soon. I'll let you know. Thanks all for the prompt and generous feedback.

quote: Originally posted by Delmer: So if you've got all that space and a backup software that you know how to use, what's the question again? Delmer, One thing is to backup your documents and another is to backup your applications. Trying to backup the applications which are particularly installed in a volume or machine does not guarantee that they will work because there are application support files ( in the Mac OS system, at least ) that cannot be copied to another volume and just work. You can ruin your machine trying to do that. I for one don't want to risk that just now. I would suspect that both machines, or at least their system files, would have to be identical. I don't think they are. Some applications simply will not work by copying and will require you to re-install them.

"t seems to me that what Ramon needs is a simple program that will allow him to drag the VectorWorks folder from the desktop to the laptop..." jan15 I actually have the backup program already. It's called Synchronize! Pro X ($99) and, believe me, it is way simpler and better than Retrospect Express. I used RE for years, probably more than 15, but I never liked its weird, confusing interface. Worst of all sometimes the program files were not recognised and you had to restart the backup from scratch. RE did compact your files, but with 250 gb hard disks selling for $199 I don't think it's that necessary. Synchronize! Pro X will even archive erased files so that you dont lose anything to incremental backing up. And the support is excellent. Synchronize! Pro X will let you back up a number of folders at the same time. I do this which the Mail applications thanks to some help from Joe Kissel, author of the Take Control - eBook "Take Control of Email with Apple Mail (1.1)". BTW, these e-books are inexpensive and packed with relevant info. So... what I really need is to know which folders to backup in order to have identical prefs and supports on both machines.

On a Mac OS X: I am trying to find out which files I should back up to my laptop in order to be able to open a document back home and have all the proper defaults and preferences for that particular documet/project up to date. I noticed that some items like the Object Libraries can be kept outside the VW application folder, but others like the Plug-ins folder cannot be automatically found by VW if kept outside. I would prefer to have all docs in the Document folder so that I can backup any changes to libraries, prefs and the like on a regular basis. Anyone has backup strategy figured out for VW?

quote: Originally posted by Ramon P: 99% of builders over here, and their crews are totally, absolutely unskilled. No such thing as "in good faith". Chris, I said "over here". You have no idea what it's like... You're entitled to your opinion on architects, too.

I think you need to change the symbol(s) inside the old drawing. Either that or do a symbol replacing which I never have done. Check out the entry "Replacing Existing Symbols" in the online manual. I think it's what you want.

quote: Originally posted by mike m oz: Thats the good news. The bad news is it only shows the line weights in mils (ie. thousanths). Not much help for those of us who use mm or pts. Those of us who are metric (93.75% of the world's population) almost certainly use mm - any chance of accommodating us? Now I get it, thanks. I guess I'll have to tape another conversion table to my wall.

quote: Originally posted by Chris Manus: Hey Raymon 1. ... I see the majority of contracts moving to CostPlus. 2. You can either be part of the process or not. We are all in it together. 3. ...BTW, I dont have time for egos, fast cars and monuments....HTH 1. That's interesting but takes one hell of a managing effort for an owner. Or do people still trust each other over there? 2. I feel builders, for the most part, want us out of the process. They feel they already know enough. 3. Yeah, right... ;-)

quote: Originally posted by Kevin: 1. There is no way that a builder should be expected to build from a model alone. A model has no specifications and the construction trade revolves around specifications. 2. Ramon has very romantic ideas, but the bottom line is that this is a business. 1. We're talking future here. Virtual model that have all the specifications attached to it. The builder looks at it from any angle, zooms in, prints anything he needs when he needs it. It's already the way of doing bussines in the aerospace, automotive, and shipping industry. We are way behind. For hundreds (prob. thousands) of years it's been hand drawing and some clay, wood, paper models. And still is for most. 2. It's not just "romantic". I'm talking about making your work matter, whether it's the 911 site, a kid's park or a one room expansion to a house. It's about excellence, service, inspiration, making a mark. Don't you feel that when you see and experience buildings? (Some at least) There lies the difference between architecture, the team effort between owner, designer and builder and just erecting stuff. You must have felt that at some time, that you were part of something really trascendental, not just another job. Too bad most jobs are not that inspiring. But, I am amazed to see buildings decades or centuries old still being used and their keepers faithfully maintaining the esscence of the original ideas intact for generations to admire. That's what I meant by inmortality, not necessarily having your name on a plaque, but I guess it didn't come out right. Of course there's a lot of junk being built because of bad designs, bad owners and/or bad builders. But the rare exceptions make it worthwhile. That is what makes you get up in the morning, besides the car payments.

It would be nice to build something with a good builder. I mean, one that knows a bit about what a building code is, has some sensibility (and good taste) and helps you throughout the building process instead of building things wrong, supposedly as per CDs, and then stretching his hand with a change order quotation to "get it right". 99% of builders over here, and their crews are totally, absolutely unskilled. No such thing as "in good faith". One of these days, mate, you'll come across a great project and you'll say to yourself "this is what building's about, I have to be a part of this, even if I can't make the boat and Ferrari payments this month" - INMORTALITY !!! TRASCENDING THE AGES !!!

You like to confuse newbies, right?? :-b There is a clumsy way, change a default value into what you want to chose, chose it with Custom Select, change it and then reset you defaults.

And Changing Record for New or Existing Objects; page 5-45

OK, I did find the way to insert the field into all placed door symbols. VectorWorks manual page 5-38.

Strange, but I can't. I only get the "Set Thickness" dropbar but no open field to insert any value. I can just choose among the current defaults.

"Set Thickness" lets me select some values but not the one I'm looking for. And you can't enter a value. I am trying to change .08mm lines that came with some window wall symbols.

I added a "Door Type" field to the Door Record and the Door Schedule in order to reference each door object in the floor plan to door elevations that will be maked #1, #2, etc. The Door Schedule shows the new field but none of the door objects show the field in the data tab of the object info window. So I cannot enter any info at the tab and I cannot edit the individual fields in the Door Schedule. Did I miss a step?

KQ - "Michaelangelo and St. Peter's Dome? Sistine Chapel maybe :-) " It is true, and they are to be seen in Rome. I have seen photos. Remember they are scaled models... Not 1:1 as in CAD designing. I agree with islandmon, I can understand that doing all in 3D might seem an overkill for many smaller projects, but greater control over what is being designed is to me the greatest incentive. And if in turn it helps avoiding loose ends that become embarassing change orders even better. But most of it is having max. control of your design intent and thus final output. It used to be that contractors and owners were very understanding of the artist's desire to better the project during the construction phase, but now it is murder on the budget. It's a pity we have lost that, which I consider vital since it is impossible to anticipate all in the virtual world. At least 3D helps to compensate for that. Let's wait for holographic 3D.