grant_PD

I try to avoid doing that, simply because I don't like to deal with a circle and not have it look like a circle. same goes with 3d objects.

Thanks for the input. Funny, I never had this problem before. But, I have learned over the years that computers, for all of their exactness, are tempermental little buggers just like the rest of us.

I can't add or subtract surfaces when using circles and ellipses. I have to convert them to polygons before I can do anything with them. If I don't the process either flat out doesn't work or it causes the ojbect I'm working with to become corrupted.

I can't add or subtract surfaces when using circles and ellipses. I have to convert them to polygons before I can do anything with them. If I don't the process either flat out doesn't work or it causes the ojbect I'm working with to become corrupted.

Lately (v11.5 new release service pack..) I can't add the surface of ellipses to other shapes.

I agree completly with the need to be able to rotate symbols about other axis than the Z. I understand the complexity involved with that process though, since the hybrid symbols' 2d portion no longer accurately represents the 3d portion. I did a project that had a raked floor, and consequently needed to rotate all of my walls and furniture to match the incline of the floor. My solution was to create a working plane that matched the rake of the floor, and then create symbols using that plane for the 3d portion. I sympathize with your pain though, of having all of those symbols with records and not being able to use them.

I'm working on a project for a cruise line, where the scenery shop wants the plates in autocad. After some experimentation I discovered that I needed to do all of my dimensioning and annotations on the layer, and merely use the viewport as a "crop" to fit to the right page layout. Once I had done that, I could export the .dwg file no problem to autocad, and have the sheet layer open with the correct reference to the layer.

When printing, I set the dpi on each sheet layer to 300 (it defaults to 72). I set the dpi in the documents preferences to 300. I set the output resolution on the print dialog box-presets-vectorworks to 300 (it defaults to 72 every time I print). That's an awful lot of setting up of dpi. Why doesn't VW have a global setting for dpi that will be the same for every sheet. Why can I choose the dpi setting in the sheet layer, only to have it overidden by VW in the print dialog box?

I'm just guessing, but can't you create a View that is of the Sheet with the correct settings?

I'd like to be able to jump into the model space from a viewport (a function we already have) but be able to jump back to the viewport when I'm done tweaking in the model. Kind of like we can when we edit groups or symbols, exiting that mode takes you back to the exact view you were in before you started editing.

I've noticed the same thing too. My thinking is that the ray tracing is much more an along the way type of process, whereas the shadow mapping is an up front type of process. I don't know why one would be slower than the other, but perhaps you're right that ray tracing does take advantage of the double processing.

can you be more explicit about what you're trying to do?

tvetter, I'd be interested to know how viewports work with autocad. I've seen people use them, and like you they tell me that nothing really goes into the viewport, it's just a cropping and arranging tool. How do people do all the annotating in model space in 3d? I've tried it and the dimensions don't show up in the viewport. Or do people who annotate in model space just abandon the viewport idea altogether and print from model space (I'm speaking in Vectorworks here.)

I've had success as well using grid transparency. You can actually backlight it like scrim and front light it for opacity. For rp screens (or any other tv/led/lit source) I use a constant reflectivity, which doesn't allow light to affect it at all.

Travis, I think you and I are on the same approach here, which is sort of like being able to "explode" models apart for the sake of seeing what you want to see in the viewports. Like you I've taken to giving every piece of architecture (scenery in my case) it's own class. That approach gives me the freedom to pick and choose what I'm looking at by turning walls off and on. Conversly though, I'd be interested to know how others get along without viewports in 3D drafting. I've tried to assemble plates of drawings but find it really confusing when views are scattered across layers. Perhaps someone from the other side of the fence can illuminate their process?

I'm fully commited to viewports. I do all of my dimensioning, notes, keys, legends etc. in them. If you were to look through my layers, there would be little to no text at all. I do this purely as an organizational trick. Since I draft the entire model in 3d, and use that for elevational work, it becomes a nuisance to have text and notes in the way whilst I look for different views. I don't control the visibility of my text and dimensions through classes or layers, because it just seems to cumbersome to me to set up files that way. as far as things not updating, it would be nice to have them update in viewports. And it's not out of the realm of possibility either. CADKEY had that functionality back in the 1990's. I believe the root of the problem (or the beauty of the situation) is that there isn't ONE set way of using classes and layers. They are merely organizational tools, and people are free to use them however they like. Viewports are merely an extenstion of that line of thinking

Funky. I'm having to rework my entire process for this project. Healthy, I know, to stretch one's horizons. Unfortunate, however, that there is no real documentation on what goes on in the conversion process.

I've just done some minor testing of exporting to dwg files. It seems that the only way I can get the dimensions and annotations to show up is if the viewport is in Top/plan mode. Please tell me it isn't so.

Try reloading the page after you allow active content. If this doesn't work, close the browser then try setting your browsers security settings lower and re-opening.

The file is really a mess how? Lots of jagged edges and stuff? That's a resolution problem, and you'll need to make a larger export file. Illustrator will accept a dwg file, is there some advantage to you trying a dwg export? I know it will be a wireframe model, but at least then you can work with the file as if it was native to illustrator.

I believ the answer to your question Nesika is that you want to "upgrade" your vw purchase with renderworks. This I know you can do, as I've done it at the office. Look at the upgrade portion of the sales site, and you'll find you can do this.

So I take it then that it IS possible to get what you want. I'd hate to get 80% down the project pipeline to realize that the conversion really doesn't work at all.

I'm looking into getting files from vw11.5 to dwg for autocad 2000 (which I've never used). In my first couple of test exports, the viewports and model space went across as planned, but my dimensions (inside the annotations) are all shifted about. Does anyone have a method for making the transition smoothly? I'm sure that if I just did all 2d drafting I could get everything lined up, but my current method is to get the drafting from a 3d model.

responding to the need for benchmark tests, what I'd be interested in would be to compare pcs vs mac, at a similar processor speed. As far as the renderings go Michael, they are all in Vectorworks with Renderworks. People are dropped in in photoshop, and sometimes rows of lights with their beams showing to indicate rock and roll style stuff. But all modelling, texturing, and graphic work is done in VW. I find it helps keep me "honest" when designing looks, rather than romanticizing stuff in photoshop.

I'd like to be able to use rotated rectangles, polylines, circles as selection items.