Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Diamond

  1. Hi Christiaan, I would go with the Raid 5 as well as Time Machine (or Chronosync). Yes, you don't get as much storage, but for the time it takes to restore from Time Machine, the RAID 5 setup would pay for itself. Also I would add an offsite backup to the mix. I am sure you know the adage, 'If it is not in three places, it is not backed up". We have just moved from an Xserve with external shared drives. We found, that we were not getting anywhere near maxing out the CPU (10-20%), as the traffic was mostly disc read/write and not processor. Now we have moved to a Mac Mini Server + multiple enclosure thunderbolt RAID 5 setup. I am no longer fully in the loop with IT, but I believe we have a RAID 5, 4 bay enclosure for our data, partitioned to reflect the previous drive setup. We have a second RAID 5, 4 bay enclosure doing an nightly mirrored backup (only of the previous days work) using Chronosync (not Time Machine). The main drive is also incrementally backed up nightly, to off site cloud backup. Also we have a dual drive mirrored disk for archived projects, that are also backed up to CD/DVD. As you can see, we have backups, on backups, on backups. Hopefully this new system prevents some of the challenges we have had with drive failures in the past. Hope that helps.
  2. Hi Jim, Regarding this, I have been pushing the bounds on this. I have been experimenting with a 3D symbols of a facade containing about 60,000 3D polygons. A couple of comments; 1. The deform tool converts the 3D polygons to class of the symbol, not the classes contained with the symbol or the object. For my multi class facade, I had to split it up class by class, deforming each individually. 2. Large facades are slow. Any way to have this tool support multi-processors? 3. Is there a way to have an options dialogue to select the option stated above, or use contained classes, etc? Thanks.
  3. Hi Jim, Looking at the paired back Working Planes palette in 2015. Unless there is some other interface improvement in this area that is going to happen shortly, it looks as if this would be better placed up in the View bar of the Application Window. How about placing it next to the 'Active Plane' and 'Look at Working Plane' similar to the Saved Views. Also, maybe it should have it's own tab in the Organisation window. If it did have a saved views set of preference settings in the Organisation window, maybe there options to edit the origin and angle of each working plane in relation to the document origin. What do you think?
  4. Hi Jim, A couple more requests on this tool; 1. On the Menu command version of this tool, it would be great to be able to duplicate objects and scale them along a path or a surface. Or is this getting too close to the surface array tool? Maybe they could be combined. I leave that to you to work out what is the best in usability terms. 2. The Deform Tool does not seem to respect enclosed classes within an object—but creates the deformed object in the enclosed class? Is there a way to do this? Is this a bug? P.S. Am trying to use the deform tool on a complex facade at the moment, and it is very slow. Any way to speed this up? Also it would be good to have a status bar to show how far along the computation is along—so that I know it hasn't hung. P.P.S. To get around the limitations of not be able to select and deform multiple materialed objects, I am deforming symbols. Thanks.
  5. Hi Benson, I also think the Deform tool is a huge step forward. Having it, would have saved me days on a recent project. Maybe what I am discussing should be a command, but I leave that to the interface designers at NV. I am thinking you would; draw a path; and then deform a 3D object to path. The start of the path defines the start of the deform, and the the origin (start and finish points may need to be selected) of the 3D object is deformed precisely to the path. As it would be a NURBS path, the 3D object would be able to be able to be deformed in all 3 axis. Maybe a similar process could be used for a 'Deform to Surface' command. Kevin, Yes, scaling, and distortion would be great. Even better, apply geometry through an applied image, kind of like a texture bump layer. You could create crazy 3D models through 2D graphics, applied to surfaces. You say that you think for #2, we can do this already. How so? Thank you to you both.
  6. Some more feedback on this. I have been working in a symbol (in Symbol plane), and the visibility of objects has been very flakey. Often if I am inside a group within a symbol, I cannot see the linework. Sometimes it helps by switching to Top/Plan view, but most often I have to go out of the group (or Text along Path path object), and back in. On the upside, Select Similar appears to be working fine for me. Hope that helps.
  7. Hi, I would like the Deform tool to be able to go one step further. Whilst it is great to be able to deform objects around a radius (for example, to create a complex facade to a radiused building), this does not appear to cater for more complex deform shapes (like an oval). I request that the Deform tool (or another tool if it is not appropriate in the Deform tool) could deform objects to: 1. A NURBS path. 2. A NURBS surface, or 3D polygon, so that we have true object to surface wrapping. Unlike the current process, which is not true wrapping, which requires extruding an elevation onto a 3D shape, extracting the intersecting surface, then lofting the extracted surface into a solid. Or the drape surface command that only drapes in a vertical axis, not actually deforming, and wrapping the shape onto another surface. Thanks.
  8. Hi Jim, To clarify, I find commands like eg intersect surfaces, compose, polygon tool inner boundary mode often do not work when inside groups, especially if those groups are inside symbols, annotations etc. I am not sure what it is about groups that does this, but has been common for as long as I can remember. Thanks.
  9. Hi Jim, Maybe the fullscreen mode, needs to be a little more nuanced, especially for Mac OS Yosemite, which has a three options (I can see) for the zooming of windows (I think under the Apple Beta program NDA, I can talk about new features, but not show screen grabs). 1. The default seems to be enter fullscreen mode when clicking the maximise button. 2. But I am seeing some apps like contacts can also zoom to fill the screen without going to fullscreen mode. 3. Finally, apps like Calculator, simply zoom to from simple, to scientific layout. When in this mode on Mac, this enters fullscreen Mac mode. Not go to fullscreen mode as it now does, but in traditional Mac Vectorworks mode, this zooms to fill screen (but respects palette margin settings). The final issue I can see is the currently named 'Use Fullscreen' pull-down menu command, and what it is named as. I like it, especially when I am only working on laptop, but if the windows style fullscreen mode was economical with it's use of space, maybe this wouldn't be an issue—especially if there was a possibility for the palettes to be embedded. Can you see any holes in what I am proposing? Thanks.
  10. +1 I find this issue common editing inside groups or symbols with a number of different functions.
  11. Hi Sean, Jim, & the Vectorworks team, Just wanted to say congratulations on the release of Vectorworks 2015. As I have been working my way through the list of the new features, I am amazed that a number of requests that I posted on the wishlist, what feels like only a matter of weeks ago, have made it to the cut of this years release. Having downloaded the Australian release on Friday, and installed on a Golden Master of Mac OS Yosemite, something stood out to me. I was reminded of a phrase from one of John Siracusa's recent Mac OS X reviews on Ars Technica. His thought was that the Mac OS with Lion, Mountain Lion, and Mavericks, was going through an awkward teenager type phase. It occurred to me that Vectorworks, since renaming itself, has been in an extended awkward phase of it's own. And while I do not see it as yet fully adult—in my mind, this would consist of full multi processor support, live viewport updates for hidden line and OpenGL renders, and central model referencing, to name a few—it feels as if it has turned a corner. It seems that Vectorworks (certainly on Yosemite) is finally confidently walking in it's own identity. Being the one in our firm that it falls upon to explain these concepts, I sense my life has been made a sizeable increment easier. While I still think there is much work to be done, I feel considerable inroads have been made in this release. A number of new features like; view transitions; perspective 3D projection; and occluded snapping, are now what I consider usable for the average punter in a Sketchup type workflow. And while many would consider these features could be considered direct ripoffs of Sketchup—coming into the confines of Vectorworks already considerable toolset, only adds weight to those other Vectorworks tools. An example of this is the 3D interface. I can already see how the view transitions feature will enable those that find 3D in Vectorworks in a single window confusing, finally be able to embrace 3D, because they will understand where they are within the drawing. And while the minute extra time taken in the transition might be considered by the pro to be annoying (I believe NV has the right mix here, but I am reminded of transitions in iOS 7), to those new to Vectorworks, this could be the difference between them going back to Sketchud (or 3DS), or actually using 3D in Vectorworks. It could just be that I am in the warm glow of a new toy, but I am confident this release has answered many of the challenges past releases made unduly challenging, or just hadn't the time to be fully baked. Keep up the good work. Troy
  12. From a font purists view, you should use the bold font within the family, and not tick the bold option in the object info palette. You will both get the font outline reading as the typographer intended it, and Vectorworks won't create the outline from the regular font version. Eg. Use the font Arial Bold, NOT Arial with the bold box ticked.
  13. Hi Jim, If you are using 4K displays, isn't having that video grunt going to help? I think this is something that hasn't been raised. Am trying to remember how it divides up the work for attaching multiple displays across the video cards, and the thunderbolt buses. But if using a HiDPi display (or multiple regular displays on a single thunderbolt bus), can the Mac Pro be set to use one graphics card for the display, and one for Vectorworks? Thanks.
  14. Hi again, Have been doing some more research on this. The Novedge webinar was very good. OzCAD.com.au has some great videos on origins, and there is an Origins PDF on VSS that was very helpful. The centre on import for the site survey was a great key that I had been missing. I think there are three scenarios, and three factors guiding the scenarios. The three factors are; -Skill level of team. -Size of project. -Location of project. The three scenarios are; -For a small project, draw everything in one file at world RL's and world rotation (before the rotated top/plan views were available, this was almost impossible for all but the Vw pro). I think this is simplest for IFC export. -For projects not set at high RL's ( i.e. not on a mountain), keep the building(s), and survey files separate, but their real RL's. This enables team work, and by splitting up the project, creates a level of protection against file corruption. -Still my prefered method is to keep the site at real RL's, and reference (raise and rotate) each building into the site model. That allows for quick changes through each stage (editing the ground heights and rotation in the site model-not the building file) , and it makes each individual building simpler to work on, esp. when roaring around the model, working at right angles, ground is alway set at zero etc, which is advantageous for teams with members of elementary understanding. The downsides are; that it does create complexity for those that do not understand references; and may create complexities for IFC export that I am not aware of. Can anyone see any holes in my thinking? Thanks again.
  15. Yes, great idea. Would be especially good for with externally referenced DWG files in DLVP also. For 2D work, much of the reason for needing to import a file (esp 2D surveys), is to understand what is on each class. Using the current viewport settings on complex files, this is almost impossible.
  16. Hi Gents, Coming in a bit late here. We commonly work with a number of buildings on a site, and I have been bitten with this same challenge over the years, and have made all the same mistakes outlined here. I believe there is only one way to get around this, and I recommend this technique for our staff on all projects going forward. As Will has stated, Vw can get a bit freaky when units are so far away from origin. I keep the site model file separate to the building file(s). Ground floor for each building is almost always set to zero (unless there is an adjoining building requiring otherwise). I then reference the buildings into the site plans/terrain model, and raise and rotate the buildings as required, to make their position correspond to real world survey coordinates. Also if I need to export out a site plan in DWG or IFC, this is the file I do that from, once again, so the model's position corresponds to real world co-ords. Critical when working on a consultant team on other software. Hope that helps.
  17. Hi, I also agree that layer views should be on by default, but it useful to turn off. Esp if settings are set to hide objects in Sheet Plane, which is the usual issue I find in our studios. Also aligh layers changes some snapping, and 2d creation modes. Also doesn't unified view override a design layers render settings. In older versions of Vw I remember using different render settings for different layers. I have been thinking of this lately, as I want to be able to save the render settings for design layers with flattened section VPs to trace over. That is, have the section / elevations in wireframe mode, but the section VP layer rendered in hidden line mode. Am I mistaken?
  18. Hi Jim, Yes, that example of the option of warping the objects is a good one. I wonder if a 3D symbol could have an option to be warped, not just scaled. Back to what we were creating that has brought up this request. See the attached Render. We got around the issue by; 1. Drawing the 3 sizes of battens in plan and extrude. 2. Project an extruded 2D elevation of each batten size outline onto an extruded radius of the building footprint (because the footprint radius was consistent, in this case was possible. If we had an oval it may not have been). 3. Extract the intersecting surface. 4. Loft each surface to create a solid to be intersected with the each of the corresponding batten size extrusions. 5. Breath. Would have been much easier to be able to model this first, convert to auto-hybrid object, and generate the plan and elevation from 3D. Thanks. PS Julian Carr provided some assistance here.
  19. Good spot. I hadn't picked that up. Am I correct in thinking this is the closest thing Vw has to wrap?
  20. Hi, I don't believe it is possible to wrap (as opposed to projecting a flat surface) onto another 3D surface. We can do something similar with the "Text Along Path". Time we had it in our 3D toolset as well. Thanks.
  21. Hi Rob, I have had this question myself. Shouldn't the walls and slabs containing components be exported out correctly, and be able to be qualified in the IFC model? Do you know how the IFC file binds together objects containing separate classes?
  22. Backing up Gester (and the link), I think most of these are based on the proprietary system/equipment that is used by the surveyor. For the projects I have had this available, the system was by Leica, and had no Mac (or Vw) plugins to be able to view the survey. Leica has a PC app to view the overall point cloud accompanied by a panorama photo of each survey scan location, which is helpful (if you are PC based). The surveyor had a draftsperson modelling the existing geometry from the generated point cloud on AutoCAD, I believe via a Leica plugin. The only reason this was feasible in our case, was due to the remoteness of the site, the terrain angle being at 52?, and negating the surveyor having to revisit the site. Back to the point could file, maybe if NV partnered with Leica, we might be able to get around this in Vw. Is there an open standard for this kind of data?
  23. Hi Jim, I believe the 3D artist have an issue editing the 3D model that is produced. Creating too much triangulation, even on the least settings in Vw. Also possibly the issue is that the textures are a challenge to apply the geometry created in VW? Thirdly, the issue could also be the issue I commonly have with issuing DWG files, where the third party is inexperienced, or lazy, to properly work through the files issued to them. In fact, in my experience, this is the more likely scenario. Unfortunately I know little of 3DS Max to be able to work through any challenges. I have sent you an email with the 3DS file we sent to them (For this project we ended up sending them the DWG files as well so they could recreate the model). PS Could it be that the FBX file seems to keep all of the texture data contained within the file, where as 3DS keeps the textures externally? Thanks.
  24. Hi Jim, This is a follow over from this post. https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=200550Post200550 I couldn't see a wish list item for this, and so here it is. For section Viewports, not having a saved viewport cache makes the flattened VP setting almost useless. When it was announced, I thought it would solve so many issues. Especially for those that are not 3D literate?to be able to trace over a pre-setup flattened VP sounded great. Ideally it would be used as an outline trace tool for details and sections. But without the option to have a rendered hidden line version and is able to be saved in a consistent render state, it doesn't solve the issue it should have addressed. Is there a way that if the flattened section VP tick box is selected, and if Saved VP Cache is selected in the Document Prefs, then the section automatically is saved as a hidden line render, separate from the render setting for that layer? Thanks.


7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114


© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

  • Create New...