Jump to content

Diamond

Member
  • Content Count

    723
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Diamond


  1. Hi Jonathan,

    Thanks for that. I had done some research on this on another techboard post. Are you are saying IFC objects will break if they are not assigned to an IFC class? Do objects like walls and doors not have this issue because they are automatically assigned to IFC classes?

    Thanks.


  2. That is why I have resulted in going back to 2 or 3 of layers per storey. All of the layers are fine if you are only one working a project, but a nightmare working in teams.

    At the moment my layer setup per story is; Plan-for the enclosure and structure; Interior-for partitions, finishes and furniture; Roof-if the storey has a roof; and RCP-if a different person is working on the reflected ceiling plans. The RCP layer objects can also live on the Interior layer.

    I think for us more proficient users, lots of layers are fine, but for the average punter, confusing. I cannot work out why, but I think that people understand classes better than they understand layers/levels. A hangover from AutoCAD training perhaps.


  3. Hi Dave,

    Thank you for engaging with us users. I know it can be challenging working through what is critical and what is not.

    Our 3 studio, medium sized firm specialises in commercial, education and interiors. Some of the biggest issues that I hear from our team who are modelling and rendering are;

    1. The limitation of the single view interface window. Why can't we have one precisely like C4D, including the window navigation arrows in the top right of the window? That would give the option for the current single window or the four windows, as well as a simpler way to zoom/move/rotate around models.

    2. As mentioned above, 64bit rendering for hidden line rendering. As a part of this, automatic line thickening to create depth would be invaluable. As a part of this, when in 3D, why do we not get a partially pre-rendered state like in C4D or Sketchup? This basic pre-rendered state should for VP's and Sections VP's also. These render states may or may not be a part of the same render engine, and so have included as one.

    3. We would like a far more intuitive way of being able to edit camera views, especially those attached to SLVPs. At the moment, when editing the SLVP camera layer, you cannot change camera views by dragging the view crop. Changing the crop should change the camera settings.

    4. Also extending what Kevin mentioned above. Like Section VPs, there should be an option to show camera instances in design layers and SLVP annotations.

    5. The limitations of modelling. As mentioned above, being able to use the free form modelling of C4D to bring that back into VW would really change up modelling easefor those that find VW modelling intimidating.

    6. Like C4D, it would be good to see the view camera settings in the OIP for both camera AND non camera views at all times.

    I realise you asked for specific requests to Renderworks, and I am extending beyond that. My suggestions / requests hint at possible cross licensing of features with Maxon beyond the rendering engine, as they seem to have done recently with working planes.

    Warm regards,

    Troy Diamond


  4. Hi Mike,

    The issue with this is that is has never been repeatable. I have raised it with Julian Carr, and we couldnt reproduce it. From recollection, it would happen to me after I would do a reference update, or if I was rendering hidden line and ran out of memory. But even then, it would only raise it's head at the most inconvenient moment.

    As for the location of the section markers, I agree. I create a Grids layer to be used by all layers, and common reference markers.


  5. Hi. I have definitely experienced this with every version since the Section VP wa introduced (not v2013, but haven't tested for it). What I found was the section line instances were imploding.

    Select the section VP and reinsert the section line instance in the design layer. If the same issue as mine, it will likely be off in the distance and you may need to zoom right in to see that the section line points are very close together. Place these back to where they should be, and it shoul be okay. No idea why it happens.


  6. Yes, you are right. My statement was written in more absolute terms than it should have been.

    I agree that materials are a good idea, but I wonder what they give. Does this extra complexity add true value, or further confuse medium users by adding an extra information layer to manage.

    Am going to have to experiment more on this.


  7. As an aside, earlier in the thread an intelligent Materials resource was mentioned. That wouldn't solve what you are suggesting here.

    I guess my answer to that is have more material/finish "Component-" classes. No different to running this alongside a Materials/Finishes Schedule. In fact, it could be the schedule was run within VW. Hmmm...


  8. As I am going to be using these "Component-" classes for 2D detailing, I can think of a number of places I might want to override lineweights, hatches, fills etc. Especially if I am applying detailing line work into SLVP annotations layers.

    Also I may want to overide lineweights and colours, as well as textures for renders.


  9. I am proposing you use a different class for each specific material, as opposed to a generic material.

    For example, if you have painted ply, vs unfinished ply in the framing, I would split these up into separate classes. If it would need a separate texture, I would give it a separate class.

    That way, if I had to do take offs, I could apply it to walls, extrusions, solids etc. to get a cubic volume take off. Although, as I think you we're alluding to, this would not give you a lineal takeoff. But with some clever spreadsheet work this could be calculated.


  10. Hi DWorks,

    Thank you for the insight. I haven't looked too much into take offs. Can't a take off be used a wall / floor component in a material class?

    Or is what you are saying; VW can't differentiate between an object that is an extrude vs a wall and therefore confuses the take off?


  11. Yes, I can certainly see the advantages in what you are saying, provided the implementation is intuitive. Thank you Kizza for the great comments provided. Very enlightening as to what is possible. Unfortunately, I need solutions now.

    What I am suggesting is that you have one class for each material used on the project. Granted this does not show 2D elevation hatches, but it will show the plan, section and Renderworks elements.

    Also, from what I understand, this would work with a VW > Cinema 4D workflow.

    For elevations, I tend to use linework classes in Sheet Layer Viewport annotations, vs applying a hatch to a 3D surface. Not sure how 3D surface hatches manifest in an IFC export? Not sure that it would be that important if the object class is based on a material.

    Managing classes, and having a large team (at differing levels of proficiency), to understand them, is a large challenge. I keep coming back to what is simplest; and what vernacular do architects, interior designers, contractors and clients understand. No matter what solution is implemented, keeping this at the forefront is key. Often programmers beavering away in the cloud are greatly removed from the realities and language of those working on the ground.

    Once again, thanks for the ideas.


  12. I need to do some testing, but I believe VW can do this already. After having something of an epiphany, I stumbled across this method. I am testing for rollout in our studios (in Australia and Asia). These classes can relate directly to our finishes schedules.

    For example, 'Component-Blockwork' being one of a series of materials classes to be applied within intelligent objects (like walls, slabs, stairs etc.). The overall wall object can remain in, for example 'Wall-External', then each wall component can be applied to one of the 'Components-XXX' material class series.

    To each of the 'Component-XXX' series of classes I have applied the local drafting standard hatches & colours as well as textures. This way they can appear correct in 3D, plan and section. To tweak lineweights, I can override the sheet layer viewports to give the correct thickness.

    I believe this method;

    -Is the best way of preventing the crazy amount of classes that tend to be created with objects like walls and the related components.

    -Works well with an IFC based BIM workflow, and unlocks real BIM benefits across a number of areas.

    -Works well with the VWArch standard in it's 'fine' and 'coarse' class settings.

    -Works well with both the architectural/building industry and Vectorworks terminology, meaning easier to understand and use for less experienced CAD operators.

    -As this means working to class settings, overriding in Viewports is simple.

    -Works for both BIM modelling and 2D section detailing.

    Obviously there will never be a perfect solution, but given years of trying to get my head around this, and trying to work out the direction that Nemetsheck VW are heading, I believe this provides considerable benefits. I look forward to hearing your feedback.


  13. I have reservations. How would this not confuse others who may need to work on the file? Do you have any examples from other apps using a similar workflow? Almost anything is possible with an intuitive implementation.

    As stated by BCD, I use groups and turning on and off object visibility outside the group to manage this. Especially helpful when building up 2D elevations. Make sure those preference short cuts are up in your mode bar.


  14. Hi Gents,

    They are called 'Saved Views'.

    I use working saved views for design layer presets. To really quickly switch between working plans I un-tick 'Save Zoom and Pan'. This means you can very quickly switch between levels or different plans types on levels. Eg. General arrangement plans to RCP's to Electrical etc. Also this gives others working on the same project an idea of how the drawings have been worked on, or set up.

    For sheet/presentation drawings, I create saved views for each drawing. This works very well when issuing large numbers of drawings with the 'Export PDF (Batch)' command. The only letter that needs to be changed in the export is the revision letter (the 'X' in the PDF number below).

    Eg. Job No, Drawing No, Revision Letter, and drawing Description.

    1234-A102X [Plan-Level 1]

    Hope that helps.


  15. Here is a quote from page 817 (titled IFC Workflows) of the VW Design Series User Guide. Not sure precisely what it means, but assigning objects to IFC classes might have been a guess closer to the mark than I expected.

    Test the quality of the IFC export file by verifying it in an IFC model browsing utility. Almost all IFC browsers can traverse the IFC ?tree? structure to view and validate the model.

    Also take a read of the previous point to this one;

    Select the IFC Data command to attach IFC data to custom user defined symbols or custom 3D elements, so that they will be recognized at IFC export.

    Hope that helps.

 

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...