brian-rwc

Member
  • Content count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About brian-rwc

  • Rank
    Apprentice

Personal Information

  • Location
    California
  1. Is there a way to manually prompt to work in 'Offline Mode' while currently connected to the network? I am having frequent crashing problems (using Vectorworks 2017 SP4) and I assume it is network related. Rather than disconnect from the network completely to force it to go into offline mode I am hoping there is an option to manually switch to offline mode. For other reasons I still want to stay connected to the network to access other file resources and so on. My current workaround is to check out the layers on the shared project file and close that file while working in a separate copy of that file (but as a non-linked regular vectorworks file) and then copy paste back into the shared project file when I open it again. That's not an ideal method but the only way to deal with the constant crashing and get any work done. Please advise if there is a manual prompt to 'work offline' mode without literally having to disconnect from the network. Thank you.
  2. I would also like the ability to lock a Section Viewport in place similar to the way other design layer viewports can be locked. Considering that Section Viewports need to be updated frequently when the plan updates it would be nice to have an extra level of security that when you click on it to update it or change layer / class settings you don't risk inadvertently moving it. This is especially important when using a section viewport on a design layer as a background for laying out 2D section line work. I currently put the 2D line work on a separate layer which helps reduce the chances of inadvertently moving the section viewport and would likely continue doing that regardless. In general I would like Vectorworks to provide better tools for displaying section viewports in 2D format such as a trace option where you can window an area of the viewport and generate 2D line work from it. I've heard Revit has a similar option.
  3. Anyone know if there been a fix to this problem? I am currently dealing with the same problem noted several years ago here. I was hoping to find the secret to avoiding the flipped Linear Material problem but not sure there is one. If anyone can advise or clarify how this tool is supposed to work I would appreciate it. I originally thought the problem was that I was moving the endpoints or vertexes with the 'Move:' selection set to 'Entire Object' instead of 'Vertex Only' but I've noticed that doesn't make a difference. Thank you.
  4. I wish a 3D Polygon could be used as path for the Extrude Along Path command. Converting to NURB is not convenient when you have to add a vertex. I would normally think a 3D Polygon would be one's first choice for a path object. In general I think the Extrude Along Patch command is in need of significant upgrades. It shouldn't have to require so much trial and error just to get a profile object in correct relation to it's path. Using this tool seems very hit or miss. When you think you have something figured out you get alerts about "invalid geometry" or whatever and your only options are to either delete everything or keep trying to figure out what the problem is. From the very limited description provided in the user guides you would think this would be an easy to use tool. Instead you have to figure out the hard way after exhausting lots of time there are plenty of constraints and invalid options to deal with. As a first step I hope Vectorworks can provide more clarity and help explain all the numerous limitations on the use of that tool.
  5. I definitely agree with rDesign's suggestion. I currently have to turn off the % slope labels and manually replace them with labels in inches / foot. Typically our roof slopes are always referenced in inches / foot and for us representing slopes by percentage is usually only used for sloped concrete surfaces or paved areas. It's important to be able to show in either format.
  6. I wish there was a separate means of controlling the decimal rounding for the slab elevation labels. It appears to be dependent on whatever the units setting was at the time it was created. We usually work with the decimal rounding set to the maximum number of places possible so when something is off due to a crooked line or whatever it is easily visible. Unless the units setting is temporarily set to not more than 2 decimal places the labels are not legible when close together. As far as I can tell the only workaround is to temporarily "dumb down" the rounding in the unit setting - make a temporary adjustment to drain layout - then re-set units setting back to original higher level of precision. I wish there was an easier way to do that. Same as there is a rounding option for the percentage of slope there should a rounding option for the elevation labels. Also it would be nice if the elevation labels were included for the ridge lines between 2 drains. An option for a dual Roof/Overflow drain sump would be nice to have also. Would be nice to have a custom size option for a simple rectangular sump. Please consider adding these options. Thank you.
  7. Just had a repeat of this problem. Lost about 2 to 3 hours of work. This needs to be fixed very very badly! Was hoping the recent upgrade to Service Pack 3 would fix it but apparently not. With software this buggy and unreliable which can lose hours of work in one step (even undoing past saves) it seriously makes me question why we continue to use it. The negatives seems to be surpassing the positives. Once again (Vectorworks) please fix this problem! This is not a productive method of working.
  8. We are also having this problem (or very similar problem) with VW 2017. Hitting the Undo shortcut key once wipes out all recent work - many steps back. Still trying to figure out if it is undoing everything back to the last save or all work during the current session but in some cases we suspect it actually undid work past the last save (reverting it to prior condition before save). In our office at least two of us have had the exact same problem. At first we both thought we were imagining it. It's an infuriating problem as usually no means of recovering the lost work - not even from the backup file.
  9. Kizza, Yes that would work and I believe it's the same basic idea. I definitely prefer the name Visibility Style over Viewport Style as it would not be exclusively about controlling Viewport visibilities. It would also control design layer visibilities and/or whatever you wanted to link the presets to. The whole point would be to create a single set of presets that can globally change or actively update whatever object or setting you want to maintain those visibility. It would basically be the existing Saved View function with significantly improved functionality where it could now serve as a sort of central control. I guess we all know about the manual work around method of achieving this where after saving and refreshing a saved view you create a temporary viewport that automatically adopts the active design layer view settings then use the eye dropper tool to select the other viewports we want to match to those settings (then we delete the temporary viewport). This would just automate that process and maintain a constant link between viewport and design layer views when selected to link the two. The reverse should also be true in that every Viewport should have the option to save it's presets as a Saved View that could be used to both navigate through the design layers as well as link to and update other viewports to match the same visibilities. Some people prefer to start with setting up Saved Views and others prefer starting with and only using Viewports but by linking them together both workflows can become better integrated.
  10. I agree completely. Last night I had to add a sub grid for a new column such as a Grid 6.4 between Grids 6 and 7 and to my shock it was not an option with the Grid tool. After lots of wasted time I just created a separate new Grid object just for that and turn the first grid off. It wouldn't even allow me to create just a single grid bubble line. if that's the only method that's ridiculous. I would like to see the other grid object tool improved as well. It should be like an easy to edit matrix that can handle any unique variation and "odd" grid bay size. How often on a project is every column bay the exact same width? Yes, and ideally that grid object tool and the grid bubble tool should be able to relate to each other.
  11. I think that would definitely be a start but often at the early stages saved views are created before sheet layers and viewports are created. If a viewport style could be created couldn't the same thing be done for saved views? Even after sheet layers and viewports are set up many of us find it easier to navigate through design layers using saved views instead of through viewports alone. To me at least it seems more tedious to leave a design layer, find the sheet the viewport is on, click on it to select which design layer I want to make active and then try to figure out what's wrong with what I see next. Inevitably I need to change class or layer settings after that because something isn't displaying correctly even though I selected the 'match viewport display settings' option. This may be "old school thinking" but somehow I still find it more convenient to just change what saved view is active. At least I can then concentrate on what I am working on rather than get distracted by various "navigation tricks" necessary to get to the same place a saved view would otherwise take me. Whether to use saved views or not always creates intense debate in our office. Some say saved views are a legacy function Vectorworks should eliminate. They say it creates a redundant organization structure viewports can handle better and they refuse to set any saved views up. I'm not convinced of that argument yet. I hope at least for now Vectorworks does not plan to eliminate saved views. If so they need to improve viewport navigation significantly. A single project can have hundreds of viewports and when using the project sharing features of Vectorworks 2016 we see all those in one file. That's as it has to be but it's like navigating a sea of viewports. On the other hand a project may have as few as several saved views that get repeated in many more viewports. It's for that reason I think a "Saved View Style" makes more sense than a "Viewport Style". I think of a "Style" as representing a basic pattern that gets repeated, not 1 of a 100 different variations. What it's named doesn't make as much difference as what it does. Basically there needs to be a more central setting to control all the various display settings available in Vectorworks whether that's design layer views or viewport settings (when selected as linked to a saved view setting). Conceptually I think of saved views as representing the more basic configurations that get repeated (Floor, Ceiling, Roof plans ect.). With viewports I expect variation not standardization. When introducing new employees to Vectorworks their biggest complaint seems to be that there are so many different display settings and combinations of classes, layers, viewports, saved views, sheet layers (on and on) that setting plans up becomes more time consuming than it has to. I think a restructured method of Saved Views that can actively link to viewports would simplify the process, provide a sort of master control, streamline the workflow and allow better organization overall. Thank you and sorry I didn't expect my response would become so long. Not easy to read in one sitting!!!
  12. I wish there was a Viewport option to link display settings to match pre-set Saved Views. This would be an optional override setting for the Viewport but it's purpose would be to avoid the redundancy of having to manually maintain the same settings on both a sheet layer Viewport and Saved Views used to navigate design layer views. Viewports to could be set to match a pre-defined Saved View (from pull down list) and vice versa. The current work around procedure for maintaining matching Viewport and Saved Views is to not use Saved Views and only navigate through the Viewport but that is clumsy. A project tends to have many more Viewports than Saved Views. I think it would much simpler to be able to create a master list of Saved Views and set the Viewports to either match a specified Save View or un-link them when you don't want them to match. I think this would help to better structure the overall organization of the project files in general and create less confusion. The flexibility Vectorworks offers in display formats may be a good thing but that can also be a detriment when setting up an maintaining all the various Viewports and Saved Views becomes too confusing and redundant. A better structured method of Saved Views could provide that macro level of organization Vectorworks is currently missing.
  13. I noticed in VWX 2015 under the DXF/DWG Import Options dialog box there is another menu titled 'Location' that was not included with VWX 2014. There are 4 different options to variously set the Internal Origin and User Origin. Could someone please advise which would be the best setting to choose when exchanging DWG files back and forth with other consultants? The first file I will be importing is a Civil Survey file however I will need to send that back to the Civil Engineer and we need to maintain a consistent origin point. One of the 4 options is indicated as the "Recommended" option but I am confused by the descriptions provided for each option and why in particular that option is "Recommended". I think it might help if there was an indication of which option is the "traditional" import option as used in VWX 2014 and all earlier versions so if in doubt you could at least select that option.
  14. I wish Nemetschek would change the default settings for the Callout Tool in the Notes Manager Dialog Box so that when you press 'Enter' it is the same as selecting 'Ok' instead if canceling out of the dialog box. I believe 'Enter' is more typically used to confirm selections rather than to cancel out of an operations. Vectorworks current defaults for this operation seem backwards and non-intuitive. I have wasted much time re-entering text I erroneously deleted. I know others in our office have had the same problem. At the very least if the defaults can't be changed it would be a big improvement if a "Are you sure you don't want to save your callout note?" warning can be added to give people a second chance to select 'OK' and save their notes when they are otherwise just selecting 'Enter' by habit. I am guessing that would save a lot of people from having to laboriously re-enter callout text in these situations. (Otherwise if we already have the option to change the defaults ourselves could you please let me know?) Thank you.
  15. I've noticed the presence of corrupt objects becoming an increased problem with Vectorworks 2014. It's always been an issue to some extent in earlier version but it really seems to be getting out of hand now. So far I've noticed the only way to identify a corrupt object occurring in the file is when you select the 'zoom to extents' option instead of zooming to the extents of your drawing the drawing shrinks to the size of a thumbnail with a bounding box indicating some strange mystery objects on the periphery that can be very difficult to single out. Since this seems to be happening all the time now my wish list request for Vectorworks is that it include an Audit Function to detect corrupted objects like these. It's a feature that could be organized similar to the Purge Function or even incorporated within it. AutoCAD has had this option for at least 20 years I would guess (if not since it's inception). It's about time for Nemetschek to add it to Vectorworks. I have already wasted an unimaginable amount of time trying to filter out these corrupted objects. So far they are usually the result of PIO's such as the stair tool or wall tool end caps that have gone wrong. I would suggest that an Audit Function have at least the following basic features: 1.) Identify which objects are corrupted and isolate them into a temporary selection group. 2.) Ask if you want Vectorworks to try to resolve the corrupted objects. 3.) [assuming option #2 fails] Prompt you to delete the objects and notify you you of the need to recreate them. 4.) Prompt you to send an error report to Nemetschek (not to Apple or Microsoft but specifically to Nemetschek).