Diamond
-
Posts
978 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Marionette
Store
Posts posted by Diamond
-
-
Hi Col37400,
Have followed this over from another thread. I think you mentioned you are running an older version (v2011?) of Vectorworks. If so, I would recommend upgrading. The 3D features added since then, as well as interface improvements are significant. Objects like Roof Framer, Auto-hybrid, Subdivision objects, components to slab and roof. Also as someone who used to advocate upgrading every second release for average users—and whilst I have not run the numbers recently—a VSS subscription worked out cheaper than upgrading every two to three versions.
On to drawing set up, it comes down to how many layers you are happy working on. I use saved views for each plan level, as well as saved views for RCP's, and 3D views (esp if I am creating a walk through). Also using Command-Up/Down Arrows, you can switch between layers quickly.
Layers
For this loft level, I would split it into at least two. One for the roof, and one for the walls, floors, etc. As I like splitting parts of each level up with layers, I would add another for RCP/ceiling fixtures as well.
Classes
You may choose to place objects on visualisation/3D presentation classes that can turned off in plan. If an object is not for 3D presentation, but for BIM modelling, you can either turn off it's class(es), or place it on a layer that will now be shown on that view (e.g. a ceiling layer—as stated above).
2D/3D Hybrid
For Vectorworks 2011, the setup above would require some 2D work on the walls layer, but prevents the confusion of cutting through roof objects (doing this would introduce either geometry double ups, and/or further workarounds in order to not have weird cut lines to the roof plan).
If you had a more recent version of Vectorworks, you could draw the roof in pure 3D (unfortunately you cannot use hybrid objects like roof, or floor in an Auto Hybrid object, but you could convert them to 3D geometry) and use the Auto Hybrid command to create a hybrid object.
This object has different abilities for viewing; 2D and 3D, or just 2D; for the cut plane; above cut plane; and below cut plane. Also you can duplicate an object, and so as not to double up on 3D geometry, change it to 2D only mode, place it on another layer (like your walls layer).
Auto Hybrid Power Tip Often I will create a 3D symbol for objects like complex eaves, beams or trusses, and convert the symbol to an Auto Hybrid object, and duplicate the object to show in the many many variations and layers I want to show it on. This way, if I update the 3D symbol, it will update across all instances of the Auto Hybrid objects referencing that symbol. Rock'n'roll!
NOTE: Please don't make the mistake of creating symbols of Auto Hybrid objects. Vectorworks doesn't like it, esp when exporting the geometry out of Vectorworks. Instead, as described above, make the symbol from the 3D geometry inside the auto Hybrid object. Capisce?
Final Note
Whilst the clever workarounds like creating section viewports from elevations are great thought exercises, sometimes the best way to get around the 2D/3D display limitations of Vectorworks is to simply draw in 2D. If you don't want some of the 2D to show in your 3D views, maybe you could place the 2D objects on the screen plane and turn off Display Screen Objects in Unified View settings.
Hope that helps.
-
Classic advert!
Regarding the weather, we are in the other direction too! Usually in the high 30's (80's to 100+ in the old scale). Today it is a balmy 25 deg C (77 deg F). Although down In Melbourne they have had temps in the high 30's and 40's this week. Lovely!
Whilst it is traditional to cook all of the northern hemisphere goodies, like turkey, pork, and lamb roasts, we also go in for the seafood (prawns and lobster) with salads. And to really mix things up, my wife and I have taken to having yum-cha for the various in between meals as well. Nice.
-
“the people… have seen a great light…”
A shout out to all of you on the Vectorworks Community Board. If not for you, and my local Vectorworks distributor, troubleshooting Vectorworks, CAD, and BIM related issues would be a great deal more challenging! Thank you all.
Given that tomorrow is Christmas day, I wish you very a safe, joyous, and restful festive season. Especially for those dealing with the busy-ness of events, family, and friends. And for those who do not celebrate Christmas, I wish you a peaceful closing to 2015 and a great start to the new year.
Here is to a rocking 2016!
-
I apologise. I seem to have killed this thread!
Getting back on track, I would like to know how you are drawing...Mike (DigitalMechanics) – Are you modelling in pure 3D? (that is, no parametric objects). If so, I can understand why you want to dispose with sheets!
Your video (www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6yLrdsgquM) comparing pure modelling to parametrics has got me thinking. More on that later. Col37400 – What parametric objects are you using at the moment? What are you struggling to get your head around that is preventing you transitioning to 3D?
Micha (Zoomer), Christiaan – What types of projects are you working on? What parametric objects do you use?
Christiaan – in the threads, I see amazing examples of your work from time to time? What parametric objects do you use? What freeform 3D modelling do you use to supplement parametric objects?
I look forward to reading your replies. Thank you.
-
Yes, the
BIM creates challenges. But I am sure the consensus is that it is worth it. In short, I think we need to educate our clients to the benefits of BIM, overcome legal requirements (which would mostly go away if we educated our clients better), and arrive at new tendering, contracting models (Once again, if we educated our clients better, I think this would be relatively easy).
Further to my outline above:
1. Let's not forget. BIM can exist in 2D information as well as 3D. Even if the end game points to 3D.
2. Architecture tends to require great variability.
For specialised services, high level of detail, due to limited suppliers, industry standards etc. make for a possibility when every component is detailed, right down to bolts and rivets. Maybe this is also the case for architects who repeat the same details over and over, from project to project. But for many, this will never be the case.
3. One reason for architects not having a high level of design (LOD) is that we need to rely on other suppliers and consultants, and them achieving relevant code/standard requirements. How you document often relates to liability. Much of the information in our designs is for our own information and design, not a performance spec. If you watch Francois Levy's latest webinar at Novedge, he is extremely clear in pointing out, the BIM data he harvests is for his own information, and not as a performance guarantee. If the client wants that, they need to engage the relevant consultant. (http://www.novedge.com/webinar/178).
4. I think where you have a partnership-like relationship with contractors this works wonderfully. But often, due to tendering processes, relationships can often be more adversarial than partnering, esp if project managers are attempting to drive a wedge between the architect and the client.
5. Regarding apps like Affinity, I think all of the incumbents (Vectorworks, Revit, ArchiCAD etc.) area are all looking over their shoulders not knowing where it could come from, and have the view that they need to paddle as fast as they can to prevent this happening. Even though Adobe just had their biggest profit year ever, one can't help but think that apps like Affinity are going to cause them grief in years to come.
-
I think I can see what you are saying.
Generally IFC is for architects and consultant coordination and clash detection, as well as facilities management. I wonder how well it works for surveyors?
Sounds like your client needs access to the clip cube (to generate/view model and sections (similar to BIMx), as well as a way to insert georeferenced survey points (or at least points in space relating to a predefined grid) that speak back to the survey equipment, similar to what Autodesk is advertising.
Well done. You are living close to the metal that is for sure.
-
Thank you gents. Will look into it.
-
Heya,
Was looking at these headsets (www.wareable.com/headgear/the-best-ar-and-vr-headsets) and was wondering up if anyone has had any experience getting models from Vectorworks or C4D into the Unreal Engine?
Thanks.
-
I was listening to the lads on the very fine Archispeak podcast (archispeakpodcast.com), and I think I need to do a double take on what I said regarding VR. Whilst I do think VR has many challenges, I think the versions that are going to be the most compelling are those that use tech we already have, like mobile phones. Also, mobile phones are going to have much better tech in them generally (retina displays, accelerometers, GPS etc.), as they are subsidised by phone plans. This is the one device (almost) everyone will have.
So if Vectorworks could add support to their mobile apps for a headset or two (even Google Cardboard) I think it would be a good start (I am thinking a BIMx type app with stereoscopic). If done well, this would be a great presentation, collaboration and marketing tool for all kinds of industries that Vectorworks could sell into.
See this article for a good view of what is out there...
http://www.wareable.com/headgear/the-best-ar-and-vr-headsets
-
I feel your pain. Particularly as SLVP's have a habit of moving on me.
Well done with the work-around though. At least you have a workflow going forward that isn't too hard to replicate, even if it is finicky.
-
I also second the opinion that a web based option would not fly without overcoming some impressive versioning challenges. I know of teams on larger projects will remain on older versions of software for the full life of the project to improve stability and compatibility. Daily updates might work for Google search, but for $100M+ projects that might need object refreshes every day as new code is developed, this is ripe for problems with older objects blowing up as they are updated.
Also, the modern web, for the most part has shown us that we want apps that interface the web, not have to live in a browser.
And on the Mac/PC, the web is way down in the list. Whilst many in these forums may want to live on the bleeding edge, most architects/designers just want their machine to be stable and do what it did yesterday.
Although a way to be able to reliably sync projects between studios via Dropbox would be welcome.
-
Hi digitalmechanics,
I wouldn't be too despondent. Fortunately the industry moves very quickly these days. Hence why the software industry has moved to a subscription model generally.
This thread has some great ideas that the industry are pursuing. 1. Survey data direct from architectural models. 2. Hololens for great ideation, and conveying complex special arrangements. 3. Apps for presenting documents.
Whilst these all reference presenting of 3D data, I think there are specific nuances to each.
1. Surely with Vectorworks adding support for getting 3D survey data into Vectorworks, it can get it out? Maybe by placing loci/geometry in a Site-DTM-Survey class or something similar.
2. With 3D, when you are in a space it can be hard to understand where you are. Which I think is a big downer for walking through a model on a computer screen. You need context. This is what stereoscopic (like Hololens) gives you.
But as cool as Hololens is, unfortunately there are some downsides. You would need the tech to fit inside a normal pair of glasses for general people to use it. And then there is the fact that many people get seasick no matter what version of stereoscopic they use (besides their own eyes
. 3. We need to present to clients, consultants, and contractors. The closest I have seen to this would be ArchiCAD's BIMx app (it is also available on Mac & PC). (BIMx - Building Information Model eXplorer by Graphisoft SE https://appsto.re/au/Wi8-A.i) It is great to displaying models, but also switching between sections to show structural/spacial context. Throw in a great mark-up tool something akin to the new Apple iOS Notes app drawing capabilities, as well as the push to survey point data mentioned in point 1, and you have an amazing app solution for site or office.
I can't wait!
-
Diamond, my experience with ifc is that at the end of the day i need to translate everything into an ifc then export.. what is needed is people need to view the model at any time with out me doing anything for exports etc
If you want people to view model data you're always going to have to send it somewhere. Call that process what you want: save, export, update, send, etc. but it's all essentially the same thing.
We just need a more efficient way to get the data from our computers to the (central) model. That could potentially be a 'Save & Commit' directly to a centralised IFC-based model.
I agree. Vectorworks needs to be able to talk IFC natively (as I think ArchiCAD does?), and make the BCF markups direct within Vectorworks. Apps like the full version of Solibri cost in excess of Au$10k, which means clients and property managers are rarely going to pony up the dosh for this.
Also on other threads, you can see the challenges we have to go through to import IFC files as overlays.
Finally on this, most people I deal with day to day have no idea what IFC is really about, or how to create IFC geometry by assigning it to IF classes.
-
also, can anybody tell me that this project could not be built from just a model? (provided of course that permits, stamps etc were not an issue)
I would say, how is it going to be set out? (relating back to a grid or site boundaries) What happens if my iPad dies on site, and I need paper? How do i distribute this info for those not on the same platform. These are the types of queries I would ask to take over an industry.
Diamond, my experience with ifc is that at the end of the day i need to translate everything into an ifc then export.. what is needed is people need to view the model at any time with out me doing anything for exports etcalso Solibre is lacking some serious stuff
Yes, I agree. And I like to live with the latest tech. But this is a day by day transition, that needs to happen across and industry. Today, IFC is perhaps the best thing we have.
Cheers.
-
Aren't we doing IFC because a certain software company is working hard to maintain its dominance (I can't blame them for that) by restricting direct translation? Maybe I'm wrong about that. But one concept of this thread is for Vectorworks to eclipse, leapfrog, the industry dominant players and their current standards, by leading Design Engineering Construction Industry past drawing & modeling focused on sheet production. Go Team VWX!!
Hi Benson,
I agree, Vectorworks needs play very smart in what is an increasingly ought and competitive market, and it needs to lead in it's core competencies — by a long way. And I would love to transition to a sheet-less BIM environment.
But as much as I love Vectorworks (and your enthusiasm), a single platform never has all of the answers.
I also suspect that many of the people that are on the Vectorworks community board, work in offices that have less than a dozen people, and do not deal with people outside their country, and do not understand the challenges of working in large teams. When I worked in small studios, it was easy to think that one platform could have all of the answers (even if it the primary tool I use everyday). Now, not so much.
BIM = Collaboration (or at least it should). We have to be able to communicate between other disciplines, and they are never going to all use Vectorworks. We need an intermediary that allows each package to talk to each other, and that is what IFC tries to achieve.
Also, IFC is a defence for the day when Vectorworks has morphed into it's next thing and is no longer around. Just ask NASA how they are going getting data off those reel-to-reel tapes they launched the moon missions on. Buildings can be around for hundreds of years, and we struggle opening files of more than 5-10 years.
So for the future, (as the video at the start of this thread shows), I think we need to look at it in terms of story telling. A sheet tells a story to a contractor in a language they (mostly;) understand.
I suspect where the true break through will occur is the BIM software company than can tell the most compelling story with all of the data in our models, in an easy way. Just as Google was able to harvest the web, the next great breakthrough in BIM is getting all of that data out of our models and into a compelling format that make people want to switch. I am sure that is why Nemetschek purchased Bluebeam.
-
I have added what I think are required extra features to Wishlist requests.
Cheers.
-
Hi,
As per this post, I believe further customisation of section VPs is required.
https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=43795&Number=220273#Post220273
1. Being able to merge overridden SLVP classes that have the same fill or hatch.
2. Additionally it would be helpful to know exactly what objects are Structural and Nonstructural so we can merge them as desired.
3. And finally be able to override Structural and Nonstructural assignments, and assign them to material classes. As not all components are structural.
Does that make sense?
Thank you.
-
Hi,
Have you explored the BCF (Open BIM Collaboration Format, i.e. IFC markup) file format? This format is used for the exact reasons you outline. BCF saves views of the IFC model showing clashes/issues need to be resolved. To do the markup you need software like Solibri.
Vectorworks implemented support for this in v2015.
Cheers.
-
Hi Christiaan,
I think we need extra features in Vectorworks. These would be;
1. Being able to merge overridden SLVP classes that have the same fill or hatch.
2. Additionally it would be helpful to know exactly what objects are Structural and Nonstructural so we can merge them as desired.
3. And finally be able to override Structural and Nonstructural assignments, and assign them to material classes. As not all components are structural.
Does that make sense?
-
Hi Jonathon,
If you do not saved the cache of the referenced file, it will always ask to update the reference each time you open the file, which, if the referenced files are large, will make the opening time of the file very long.
Regarding the IFC, I am trying to remember, is there an option to simplify geometry on importing of the file? I have found the same. Importing IFC geometry creates huge file sizes. Maybe try this Vectorworks help link.
Does anyone have any tips on how to keep imported IFC geometry to a minimum size?
-
Hi Christian,
Depending on how simplified you want it, I use a class that has a pattern fill (so it will print correctly in colour and black and white) to display the section plane. In fact I use this most of the time as I tend to show larger scale section details (1:10, 1:5), and keep my section to a simplified 1:100 or 1:50.
Depending on your LOD requirements this might be enough, although I appreciate, especially for single residential work, this is not always the case.
-
Hi Christian,
As Wes says, there are definite benefits for project sharing by having multiple layers per storey. Also if you have less layers, you are going to require more classes.
Finally, also it can depend on what design/documentation phase you are in. For design concept work, maybe you use a reduced layer set, but for documentation you add in those extra layers. With the layerless levels, it makes it easy to add layers later. And provided any new layers are assigned to the correct storey, this not should not affect your objects assigned levels.
TD
PS Something that could be useful is to assign symbols and various other symbol/hybrid objects (other than wall, roof, and slab) heights by level. Eg. Assign wall mounted lights to a level. What do you think?
-
Hi Christiaan,
If I understand you correctly, I have a way around this.
I use a material set of classes under the "Component-…" prefix. These classes have hatches, fills, and textures set so they display correctly in plan, section, 3D elevation, and 3D renders. They can also be used for 2D section detailing.
So if an object is a wall, a floor, or roof etc. and it is made of the same type of concrete, I can use a the same "Component-Concrete" class.
What this means is that I do not go in for dozens of different component classes for walls, and then another heap for slabs, and more for roofs etc. I use the "Component-…" classes for all of my materials. Often I will also relate these to my finishes schedules as well. If I have a number of different concrete finishes, I will create more concrete "Component-…" classes.
Does that make sense? Love to hear your thoughts.
-
Hi Gents,
Thank you for your input. I expected this would be the case when dealing with single residential projects. Although I am still in favour of my method.
Also for your single residential, I would still recommend you keeping your site survey, model and landscape separate as the rubbish that can come in with DWG surveys can cause problems, unless you are doing something clever there. (I realise you can use a DWG shuttle file for the survey, but how are you getting the 3D geometry into your file to create the Terrain Model? I generally like to clean up survey info up anyway as I need to use much of it for landscaping, and terrain model pads and texture beds.)
Yes, the 'interactive origin mode', or rotate around selection is what I commonly use. And the saved views are also a great way to manage the view shift.
Am keen to know what those working on larger projects are doing.
Thanks again.
we can eclipse the industry
in General Discussion
Posted
A side note—Nemetschek has just purchased Solibri. From Architosh.
With Nemetschek mostly leaving companies autonomous, I think this is more good than bad. But my gut instinct tells me, as this thread has been discussing, it would be better to see companies like Bluebeam and Solibri merged into a next generation data display solution to get the best from both, and transcend current limitations. Once again, I keep coming back to a BIMx type solution.