JBC

If I understand your question correctly, do the following: On the Menu Bar go to Tools>Options>VectorWorks Preferences, select the Interactive Tab and there you can find the controls for Selection and Snap Box Sizes. Changing these controls will have an affect on the tolerances you describe. Also, zooming in very close while your drawing may be an easier solution in many cases where you need more control just for short while. This is what I do.

Drafting for me with my Magic Mouse dramatically improved upon installing the MagicPrefs Utility. I think with the new trackpad there is great potential for improvements in the future for this device should similar software become available.

Kevin I think that your Dimensions are accidentally sapping to the Viewport Crop. If you extend the crop up and redo the dimension you'll get your 10' and 2' dims like the others. MBMD I'm on a Mac and don't get the error you are talking of.

Yes I think that if you Modify>Convert>Convert Copy To Lines, paste into a new VW document and then Export as a dwg. You may get better results when importing in to AI.

Thanks a bunch Wes, this is a big help. The thing I must have missed was matching the jamb depth with the window offset. And it looks like you got the appearance of wall caps by matching the lineweights of the parts of the window to the lineweight of the wall. The file you posted will save us a lot of time.

Hello all, using the window tool, can I offset a window in reference to the jamb? Also, a window created from the window tool does not break the wall with full caps. Can this be changed? This does not seem graphically correct. Someone a couple of months ago posted the same question, but I don't think got a response. Revit and ArchiCAD break with full caps, and I teach to do it this way with AutoCAD/VectorWorks 2d. I've posted an image. The window on the left is the closest I can get with the window tool. The window on the right is one I created from ungrouping and creating a new symbol.-Brendan

I work out at the local Community College here in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I teach intro level courses in Revit, AutoCAD, ArchiCAD, and just this year, VectorWorks. After a student sees something like Revit, Autodesk Inventor(think SolidWorks from Autodesk) or ArchiCAD in action they often ask me why they are taking AutoCAD if these other applications seem to be more efficient at what they do. My answer to them, besides AutoCAD being such a widely used CAD package, is that AutoCAD can do things that both Inventor and Revit can do, but at a cost. My analogy is the Swiss Army Knife. It has a knife, scissors, spoon, saw, etc, but these tools are not as good as a separately bought knife or scissors. The cost of having many tools in a single package is that it is very difficult to be all things to all people. I believe that VectorWorks is in a similar paradigm. This Swiss Army Knife affect is both VectorWorks strength and weakness. If tool in Vectorworks comes up short you can usually model and patch your way through, but at a loss of productivity. In another thread it has been recently discussed that there is indeed a situation where current tools need to be improved while others desire improvements in workflow and modeling, and that there appears to be a dichotomy between fixing what we have and advancing forward. We need both in order to compete/survive. I enjoy the fact that this program can do many things. I do not think that even if VectorWorks should try and be a specialist in one area, and spent all its resource there, that it would be a successful outcome. It's strength to me is that it can do many things. I've often thought that if I were stuck out on the middle of nowhere for years, with a choice only one CAD application, what would it be? VectorWorks is often at or near the top of the list. A couple of years ago I thought there was the beginning of the writing on wall for VectorWorks. I am exposed to a lot of different software where I work and I knew there was tidal shift towards a model centric information systems within CAD. VectorWorks seemed to be going along only slightly nudged by all this, but then, as if on cue, they announced the integration with the Parasolid modeling kernel. My hopes were renewed. I agree with Kevin in regards to his suggestions. I would add that reliable, straight forward, driven constraints and dimensions are critical for moving forward. Changing tool options towards a more context sensitive environment, while not being limiting, is also important. And yes, fixing current tools is equally important. Richard's point regarding free learning materials and other resources is not lost on me as an educator. We need more, and VectorWorks should consider doing as others have done and make this application free to educational facilities. In my opinion it is better to build a user base in the educational environment. These students will then become paying professionals rather than the schools having to make the choice getting free software or buying VectorWorks. I do though appreciate that VectorWorks is available free to individual students. I am in the middle of many of the threads on this forum. I have to decide how much of the class will be concentrated on 3d and more accurate workflows moving things in the direction I think things are headed, or do I teach more 2d traditional work closer to the way business in the local area are aligned and actually operate now. All this is very interesting. No matter what software you use it is within our interest that these applications be competitive. As stated before I think that VectorWorks strength is that it can do many things. The modeling of architectural and non-architectural become more and blurred the further into integrated systems we get. It is analogous to doctors and biomedical engineers. The fields are converging and overlapping. It is physics and medicine. I agree with Benson also. The better VectorWorks interacts with others the stronger more viable the product is. My apologies for being so long. I appreciate the members of this board, and for keeping the recommendations positive. I hope that Nemetschek is listening and responds in the directions stated.-Brendan

Thank you for your reply Jonathan, I think that helps a bit with the core, but it is 1/2" gypsum board on either side of the wall that has me stumped. The pillar doesn't have the ability to translate the components through it to connect to the other walls. At least things look pretty clean in 3d. Perhaps with a bit of 2d fill and linework we'll get through in the meantime.

Hello all, I'm teaching a class in VectorWorks and having a hard time getting some walls to connect their components where walls meet at corners, and in particular where angled walls meet corners. I wondered if any of you had tips regarding this. I have attached a picture of what things are supposed to look like, and the VectorWorks 2009 file I'm testing in. I've tried this in 2010 also. I've spent a couple of hours trying to get these walls to meet up, and I don't think that these conditions are all that unusual. Have tried Auto Join Walls and various modes in the wall and component connect. Any help would be greatly appreciated.-Brendan

phased, if you want to use the colors you set up in your classes you should either check the "Use at Creation" box in the Edit Class dialog, or set the fill and pen color of the attributes palette to "Class Style" before you create your objects. Without either these options if the attributes palette is set up to the color black your lines will end up black regardless of what the class is set to. You then end with what your talking about with having to select the object in order to get an idea what class it resides in/on.

Gosh I thought that might be it. I can recreate your problem over here and the button fixes it every time. There are two reset buttons in the Session Tab of the Preferences. One says "Reset"(lower left of dialog) and the other says "Reset Saved Setting"(upper right of dialog). When I click the Reset Saved Setting VectorWorks pauses and reloads the palettes and then the EPS warning returns when exporting... This is on a PC, 2009 SP2. My older Mac with 12.5 doesn't get the warning...

Under the Session Tab in the VectorWorks Preferences there is a button to "Reset Saved Settings...". I think clicking this will bring back your dialog with reference to EPS and Page Boundaries, but I also think it will reset many other things too, so please be aware...

I have found in the past that if a particular set of objects is giving me trouble using the fillet tool it helps to combine them before hand using the Connect/Combine tool. Use the 3rd mode(Dual Object Combine), then use the fillet tool.

I think if you go to the VectorWorks Home page and Training>Free Resources and look at the last video on the list I believe it may be what you are looking for. http://download2.nemetschek.net/www_movies/2009/VW2009_Mesh_Tutorial/Shell_Tutorial_by_RichardGue.swf

Perhaps one of the Vista guys knows if there is a shortcut to switch between open windows. You could try alt+F6, that works on multiple open documents in Word, but since my VectorWorks is on a Mac I can't test it. By the way on a Mac shortcut between all open documents is Apple Key+~, at least on VectorWorks 12.5 -Brendan

3x3x3, In 11.5 I would often see something similar to what you describe. In most cases it turned out to areas where 2 or more objects shared the same space. For instance if I had accidentally pasted a wall in the exact same place as another. Again, looked fine in OpenGL but not in RenderWorks. The problem would often change as I turned the direction of the light. The solution was to make sure that all of my objects did not overlap.-Brendan

Bruce, I often will use the snap to grid constraint when editing the placement of the profile. This will ensure that you can place a reference, such as a locus, along with the profile precisely at the origin of the cross-hairs. A quick glance at the Object Information Palette should show that you are right on the coordinates of 0,0. Another way I like to align the profile is to look at the 3d model in a side view so that I can see exactly where my profile is and where it needs to go. If you draw a line between these two points you can copy it and paste it right in the edit window of the profile to use as a reference. These two methods work for me, and I can see no error at maximum zoom. This is not to say that I don't think that the tool needs improvement.-Brendan

Kaare it is possible that your rendering was encountering more and more geometry/materials as it proceeded into the animation. I have watched the progress bar on a few 13 hour renderings and it seems to rise and fall in direct relationship to the complexity of the scene. At times it slows to a crawl as I know it is in a place within the animation where the camera is pointing up at 100 or so small beams. At this point the time left in the rendering starts to grow at an alarming rate as the computer starts to average these new frames in, but after it passes that place in the animation the time begins to shrink. This is on 11.5, I have not tried a long animation in 12 however.-Brendan

Rok, I think that the at heart of this matter is the distinction between an axonometric projection and an axonometric drawing. Within an axonometric projection all axes are foreshortened to a degree. In the case of an isometric setup all principle axes are foreshortened to an equal degree. When one does and this type of an axonometric drawing however, they will input the measurements true to scale, thus keeping a 1:1 ratio. Cavalier and Cabinet drawings can be drawn with equal scale, but have distortion with regards to the receding lines. As I understand your question the discrepancy in scale goes back to the computer projecting rather than drawing your model. I hope this helps, and doesn't confuse you as I am certainly no good at these types of drawings. That is one reason I like the computer so much. I've pulled the old Francis D.K. Ching book "Design Drawing" off the shelf and it makes things more clear for me. He does make an effort to emphasize the difference between an axonometric drawing and an axonometric projection. You should be able to scale your model to compensate the shortening of lines within an isometric view however. This would give the appearance of a drawn to scale view. Like I said before I am certainly no expert, but your question got me thinking. Perhaps one of the more seasoned forum persons will chime in to correct me, but I hope this at least give you some new leads.-Brendan

JC, I can get a result similar to yours if I assign colors to my layers and have the Use Layer Colors box checked under Document Preferences. Check these 2 items to eliminate the possibility that they are affecting your drawing.-Brendan

The Organize>Modify Layers & Classes shows is in VW Architect workspace. I'm not sure about the other Industry Series.-Brendan

O Monsen, you might give the Duplicate Along Path tool a look if it is available in VW 9.5. I did a quick test and I think it will do what you want if I understand your question correctly.-Brendan

DW I just tried to recreate your problem and the same thing happened to me. When you change the attributes of a class I think it should prompt you as to whether or not the new changes will apply to the objects that all ready exist, but it didn't. This is with checking the Use At Creation box selected. I tried several more times with different colors checking and unchecking boxes, but to no avail. I was able to fix it by using the eyedropper tool and/or by choosing class color where you see the preview color in the attributes palette, but you should still be able to do it the other way. Just in case I closed VectorWorks without saving and opened it up again and now it works??? Again I tried, and now seems to work fine. So good news is your not the only one who's seen this, bad news is I don't know why it happened. Try starting the program up again.-Brendan

I saw some posts regarding problems similar to yours when I did a search on Recursion Levels. It seems to help with multiple transparencies if the level is set higher. Just a thought.-Brendan

I was in the same position about a year ago. In the end I went for the Powerbook. I went to a local store and sat down with both. With the powerbook that extra inch seemed to make a big difference. Another feature that I really wanted was the ability to expand the desktop by hooking up a second display. And as far as I could tell at the time the ibook only had the ability to "mirror" a second display. There are other features that the powerbook offers and it seems to be much more expandable. To me it all comes down to how much time your going to be spending on your new machine and whether or not those extra things will make up the difference in price. Today I am very happy with my purchase and just recently got a 20" LCD from Apple. I use the new display as my primary monitor when ever I get the chance, but still enjoy the mobility of the powerbook. I know that a year ago it took me about a month to decide as they both seem to be good machines. I also increased the price by getting a gig of RAM and a backlighting for the keyboard. You'll also probably need a good mouse to go with either unit as the track pad is not very conducive for drafting.-Brendan