E|FA

There's a Wishlist item. Please vote (up arrow at top left):

If you have specific problems, ask and/or post a file. Someone on the forum will most likely help you out. VW knows how to draw walls. Two kinds, in fact (see @Pat Stanford's post above). There's a definite learning curve and even after years working in the program I haven't mastered everything. However, I can get my work done efficiently. The first thing you need to do is decide whether you are using a workflow that uses Stories or not. It might help building a small sample project in each format and see how it works for you. I found stories too complicated when you have split levels and floor offsets, which are common in my work. If I was working on mid-rise or highrise structures with repeating floor-plates, I would almost certainly use them. IThere's a great post on the forum titled something like "No Stories, No Problems" that's a great starting point for that workflow.

You could try building each of the runs as a straight stair using the Stair tool and piece those together with 3D modeled parts for the landings. For the bottom splayed stair, you can build a single run stair that's the max width of one part, ungroup the Stair to get 3D objects, and then trim and mirror to get both parts. Ungrouping the upper runs might also help creating the overall stair. I would not bother with the railings in the Stair tool. The new Handrail tool might help, but I haven't used it enough to know. Modeling everything in 3D may be easier. Others may have better ideas.

I just had an issue with Illustrator not accepting spaces in text fields. Unfortunately I don't remember what I did to resolve it. Possibly a reboot and/or rogue Keyboard or Accessibility->Keyboard settings.

@Ryan Russell I support your recommendations for potential VW features as I'm sure they'd be helpful to you and others. For me, these items would be relatively low on the priority list, especially the structural calculations and code compliance for which I would not rely on any software package. From a professional practice standpoint, I would still need a structural engineer and to do my own code review for nonstructural elements. I also do not expect nor represent my drawings to be a "Digital Twin" of the constructed product, even though I believe my drawing sets are more detailed than many/most architects in my area. Unless I have specific detail requirements, I do not want to direct a contractor on the stud layouts and I can't think of many contractors whose framing crews would follow them in the field if I did. The part of your suggestions that I would find most useful are in your "nice to have" list, with the Wall tool upgraded to the point that it could generate plates, corners, etc on plans/sections/detail viewports. I think your list captures the items that we'd want to control. The only other item I can think of at the moment is fireblocking.

I'm sure everyone has different workflows and needs, but I wouldn't want to complicate the existing Wall tool by adding framing members. I'm an architect who does mostly single family wood framed residences in the US, and I have no need to show every stud in my drawings. For me, the floor plans are diagrams that show the general type of wall without telling the contractor how to frame it. If there are specific alignments necessary, I handle them in the details and/or structural drawings. If I have exposed joists, I model them in 3D for the sections to work out. I understand that others may want/need to show the full framing package, so my preference would be that this remain a separate tool. The Wall tool is too complex already, having to deal with component settings, wall peaks, component wrapping, etc.

To be honest, I don't use filters a lot. I would probably just end up building separate saved views for each discipline. Unfortunately, finding workarounds for your workflow is a big part of using VW.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment, I think you can filter in the Create Saved View dialog box:

And here

@line-weight I don't think it's controversial to set up an efficient workflow that works for your projects. I'm jealous... I don't think I could get it to work for me, both in terms of my capabilities in VW as well as the types of projects I do & level of details I typically draw.

Reporting back. I gave it a shot and gave up. Not a good thing to try when on a deadline. I also gave up on having my details in a referenced file because I was having issues coordinating the callouts, so my file just got bigger. Maybe there's a way to do this, but not on deadline.

That doesn't mean you can't be sued like a real architect. TBH, I've never been sued, but I have paid for my mistakes. The old saying that the architect is always right, the contractor is always wrong, and the client always pays (reverse architect and contractor as desired) is not always true in my world.

Yeah, that's the problem. If they create their bid from the data and the data is wrong, you could be on the hook. A simple example: your list says 10 fixtures, but the drawings show 11 fixtures. Their bid is for 10, so who pays for the 11th fixture? It gets more complicated when the error results in construction delays (e.g. long lead time to get the missing item because the sub ordered based on your count) that can domino to affect other trades and dramatically affect costs. Simple solution: let the contractor be responsible for their work and count.

From a professional practice standpoint, I was taught NOT to count items for the contractors. If the count is wrong, the architect could be financially liable for the error. Depending on the item and the schedule implications it could be $$$. If you do choose to include the information, a disclaimer notice saying the information is for "order of magnitude" only and should not be used for bidding would be worth adding.

Unless we're both missing something, I think this is a real issue that should be resolved. I'm actually working on detailing a project right now, and need to be cautious about how I lay everything out on the DLs so that I don't mess myself up if I have to move things later. Other than standard assembly details, my DL detailing layout strategy is different - I arrange the details in the same way as they exist in the plans & sections. If the deign needs to be revise (or I realize I forgot to include things) I would need to move things on the DL, which would mess up previously created VPs. I really like your idea of using Symbols for each detail, and placing them directly on the SL and think this could be accomplished through a new workflow without any VW Wishlist items. I might try it for this project. I haven't thought about how to coordinate between the SL drawing labels, and the different Markers that reference it. Will we need to create a dummy VP with the Drawing Label inside? My weekend plans were to create the VPs for my details and set up the Sheet Layers, so if anyone has some quick suggestions they'd be appreciated.

I use the Scale Objects command if I need to resize multiple objects, which mostly happens if a DWG file is imported at the wrong scale.

I have only ever used the second mode, so I don't even know if I should try the 3rd mode. And I haven't looked at the new fourth mode yet. I think a better Wishlist request would be a way to toggle backwards between the UIO[] toggle modes throughout the interface. This would give you a quick way to get between 3rd & 4th modes. Maybe a Shift-U to toggle backwards? I've just been spending a lot of time jumping between 2 of the 7 Reshape tool modes, and going backwards would save time and irritation.

That's an understatement. Matt's been very helpful with wall clousres in other threads on the forum, but I still can't keep things straight. A full tutorial webinar or PDF would be great.

This is off-topic, but I followed the link to @Andy Broomell's site and saw his post on the Create Similar Object tool. How did I never know about this magic? Thanks Andy. https://www.andybroomell.com/create-similar-object

They don't make this link easy to find, but you might want to submit it here: https://www3.vectorworks.net/vectorworks-bug-report Per other threads, you'll be submitting to a black box and likely won't get any feedback or response, but it might help.

100% Unfortunately we're talking to ourselves.

If VW can use AI to automate workflows and the interface then that seems like a reasonable use of resources. If they try to use AI to generate details, etc then I think it’s a disservice to the user base and a potential problem.

I'm assuming Stay won't work with docked palettes. Is that right?

There’s a Wishlist post on this somewhere.