DDDesign

Thanks Frank, it's a work-around, but not very satisfactory. 1. I am working on a front view, and you can only make symbols in plan view. 2. I want to use the object for further solids operations, which means I have to reconvert all the duplicate symbols. 3. The duplicates are still distributed in a strangely rotated way - and it's trial and error to get the symbol insertion point right. 4. The first duplicate is still incorrectly spaced. I am glad the tool has been improved in 2008.

I've been trying for years to make sense of this tool. I know I must be doing something wrong, but I also think that the tool does not behave in the way that it 'should'. In this example (with tangent to path checked): 1. The object is ever seems to be placed on the path about its centroid. This os often not what I want. 2. The object is not tangent to the path in this case. 3. The object duplicates are rotated - seemingly arbitrarily. I've tried pre-rotating the object to compensate but this does not work either. 4. The spacing between the object and the first duplicate is never what is specified. 5. The manual is no help. Does anyone else have a problem with this tool? The tool is even more difficult to use if I try to duplicate 3D objects - sometimes they don't even line up, or have a twist. Surely only ever being able to place the object on the path about its centroid is restricting the usefulness? Is there another tool that will do the job I want?

Well, this could apply to a host of other dialog settings as well. And there are some dialogues that don't even remember settings within the session itself.

I entirely agree, and I've mentioned this on several posts, but I think they've mainly fallen on deaf ears. I think most of the users here don't use inDesign and therefore don't have an understanding how easy and straightforward it is to select stacked objects this way. No messing around with stacking order. I would think it a very simple modification - and one that would not upset anyone who didn't want to use it. The second part of my selection tool modification is to have a mode whereby the selected object is the one that is dragged, not the front object. This is entirely logical, because in all other operations it is the selected object that is operated on by a tool. VW seems to defy logic in making an exception for 2D selection tool. Once again this is how inDesign works. The change would be of even greater benefit when working in 3D. This also has been the subject of several posts.

Not when I've tried it. You recompose IMMEDIATELY after decomposing. Everything that is decomposed is already still selected, you don't have to re-select anything as far as I can see. It's a quick step. Then you delete your polys after recomposing. Doesn't solve your other issue though. One thing I've often wished for is the ability of VW to do operations on groups - your cutting objects would be in a group, and you would use the group to cut.The you can edit the group. Other applications have this ability, and it would be useful in lots of situations. How many imes have I been caught out trying to o something that VW tells me I can't do, then to realize that it is because one of the operands is a group?

Benson, Another way to edit clipped surface with internal polys: 1. Select surface - modify>decompose. 2. keeping all selected - modify>compose. 3. Select and delete reqired internal polys.You may have to send external poly to back so you can see them all. 4. Exit edit as required.

Yes, I can, but it's exactly the same thing. The change occurs after exiting the group edit. It's like the group somehow overides the object's texture attributes, but this shouldn't normaly happen. (I thought it only happens when you ungroup and check the apply option.) I've done a workaround by ungrouping everything I can, but I still would like to know what's going on. It's happened to me before- I think I had to use another texture last time. Maybe the texture itself has something to do with it - though I can't see how. Prior to using the new texture I had another one working perfectly well as far as direction goes. But when I created the new texture it was the wrong way around and I had to change all the mappings. Which leads me to reiterate a wish that I've seen stated before - that the should be a facility to globally rotate direction during texture creation and editing. I wonder if VW2008 has fixed this.

Pete, the problem in this case is a plain extrusion.

Eport PDF (Batch) is not available on Fundamentals (Sorry, my profile didn't reflect this I've just updadated it)

I have a texture based on a filtered image. The image is a scan of timber veneer. I have a problem orienting the grain direction. I've tried rotating it in the mapping pane of the OIP but when I render FQR it appears 90 degrees out to what it appears oin the pane. Then when I exit the group edit of the group the component with the texture is in, the direction changes again. I try rotating the direction in the OIP again, then by the time I'm out of the group edit the direction is still the same. The group was part of a symbol. I had a render on the model layer with two instances of the symbol with different directions on each - that surely shouldn't be possible!? Also when I render a viewport the direction is different to the rendering on the model layer.

So I've just used the export to pdf option in VW for the first time. Previously I've always used the print to pdf capability of OSX. I usually have sheets set up with multiple pages. If I use the VW export to pdf, I get a pdf of the whole sheet with the pages ignored. With Mac print to pdf I get a nice pdf with pages, thumbnails etc. It's even not possible to tell the VW export to pdf which page to export like you can with Mac print to pdf. So I can't understand what spectifically is the benefit of VW export to pdf for Mac users -except the file size is smaller? For me it's basically useless.

Yes, and heres's what I found is strange -it happens for some corners and not others. And success can depend on which order the fillets are done. Sometimes if you can't do a corner you can fillet another corner - and then come back and fillet the unsuccessful corner later. Two other things - I couldn't find any repeatability in my tests = sometimes it workd in one one, then the next time it didn;t work. Also I tried it with metric units and didn't have any problems at all. Must be a bug.

I don't know why you just wouldn't just import them as images - file>imort>import image file... then to scale them appropriately. Sections are just 2D, so an making ann image prop, which is really a trick to make an image into 3D seems an unneccessary step.

Maybe we could wait until June 2008 before buying it - the next time there's a Friday 13 - after walking under a ladder and having a black cat cross our paths of course! Although by that time the 'internal version number' will probably be about 13.5. I don't think 13.5 has quite the same effect.

Hey, shouldn't the next version be called Vectorworks v13? Surely the folks at NNA aren't superstitious. Surely not!? And what's the next version going to be - v14 or Vectorworks2009 - or maybe Vectorworks XP? What's suddenly become wrong with consistency in version numbering?

I haven't noticed this particular problem, but the HLR is full of bugs. I hardly ever get the correct result - lines missing or appearing where they shouldn't be. My solution for removing unwanted lines in a viewport HLR is, in the annotations mode, draw a white, thick line over the offending line. Zooming way up can help this process. For curves, the method is not so good - draw an object(s) with a white fill and stroke over the area. Sometime I play around with using artistic renderworks- tapered lines mode - setting taper, cutrliness and wobbliness to zero. But this only occaisionally gives a satisfactory result. The best method would be to have VW fix the thing so HLR works properly!

I upgraded from a dual 2Mz G5/VW11 to a 2.13Mz core duo Macbok Pro. The result was a doubling of renderering speed in FQRW. Everything else flys along too, especially booting up and Apple apps such as iPhoto. The core 2 duo machines would be 20-30% faster again. Add a further 30% for the difference between 2.16 and 2.8Mhz and you should be very pleased with the results. And the fact you can now connect your current display to the new iMacs in extended desktop mode is going to let you really maximize your display real estate, especially if you're getting the 24" model...

Surely the comparison between Australian and US price is irrelevant. What's important is what you get for your $A, is it value for money? And compare it to to the alternative - also priced in $A.

1. You could loft between 2 NURBS curves, separated by the the distance of the extrusion. 2. You could sweep with 1 rail (as the NURBS curve) and a straight line NURBS. 3. What about breaking the polyline into a single cycle, extruding, covert to symbol, and then duplicating a series of symbols? 4. What are you trying to achieve? Maybe it would be sufficient to set up a texture, and map that ono a plane surface?

My method is to have a title block saved as a symbol, with a copy on each page on a sheet, so an edit to the symbol will automatically update each instance. The title block includes date and file info from the date/file stamp which I update on each revision or print.

I use both, and generally use VW for modelling, but they're chalk and cheese. ( I wouldn't call a sailing ship a "typical project" ) Rhino has several ways of blending curves and sufaces - important I would think for naval design, but VW is poor in this respect. Also, a basic tool that VW does not have which Rhino does is a 2 rail loft (Rhino calls it a sweep) with multiple cross sections. Again, very useful for complex shapes.

The shortcut is edited in the usual way. Go to workspace editor, select the tools tab and select the 2D selection tool from the pallettes window. When it's highlighted type the desired key. Once the key is selected it is shown next to the tool. I think in earlier versions when you hit the escape key you would see "esc", but now it's just blank for some reason. If it doesn't work maybe it's a PC/Mac thing.

Escape works also for Mac. I have my key shortcut for the select tool changed to escape. That way I can exit the OIP and go straight to the select tool with one keystoke, which is 90% of the time. If you need another tool, the extra keystoke required leaves you no worse off. When you edit the workspace to put the esc key in, it doesn't show up, there is just a blank, but it works just the same. I even have a button in my multibutton mouse set up designated as escape/select. I think it works great.

One of the main arguments of my suggested selection tool mode is the pure logic of dragging the selected object, not the front (unselected) object. However the issue remains as how to best select an object that is non-front or "hidden". Sometimes often there is a handy unique edge you can click on, but sometimes not. I've previously suggested a solution which works similar to that used in InDesign: You hold down the cmd key (or another key) when you click on an object; each successive click selects a different object in the stack. In other words the stack order cycles through and each object is temporarily brought to the front. When you release the key, the last object remains selected, but the sacking order reverts to what it was originally. Now with the new "drag selected object mode", you can drag the object even though it remains behind something else. This is much better that the current work-around of bringing objects to to the front, thereby constantly re-arranging and confusing the stack order. It's a very simple and efficient method. I hope this suggestion also explains why I have been arguing so strongly for the drag selected object mode, because the temporary stack cycling method would have little use if you still couldn't drag the selected object. The two work very well together.

No, I didn't say that - I said "... it would be OK, but I've never felt the need for it." I also said "your vector move function would have enough support to warrant it anyway, so as I've said before there is an argument for having both new modes." In other words it should be included, because a lot of other want it, and despite the fact I don't feel disadvantaged by not having it, I'm open to the possiblity that it would be useful for me as well. Since I seem to have finally explained to your satisfaction how my suggested new mode would work, then why not agree that both this and your "selection de-select" toggle have their own particular use and should both be included in a revamp?