Jump to content

Diamond

Member
  • Content Count

    723
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Diamond


  1. 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


  2. 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. :)


  3. 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! :)


  4. 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.


  5. 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 etc

    also 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.


  6. 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.


  7. 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.


  8. 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.


  9. 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?


  10. 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.

    http://app-help.vectorworks.net/2016/eng/index.htm#t=VW2016_Guide%2FIFC%2FImporting_IFC_Files.htm&rhsearch=IFC&rhhlterm=IFC&rhsyns=%20

    Does anyone have any tips on how to keep imported IFC geometry to a minimum size?


  11. 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.


  12. 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?


  13. 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.


  14. 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.


  15. Framing Member Tool hints

    It is an hybrid object, so it will display for you in both 2D and 3D.

    Over the last few versions of Vectorworks the Framing Member Tool has improved greatly with you being able to apply mitres to the ends of beams and frames in all 3 dimensions. If the out of the box profiles don't work, you can create your own symbols of 2D profiles.

    I think the truss options are quite basic, so it will depend on your requirements.

    Auto Hybrid object hints

    If Framing member doesn't work in this instance, you could also try the various 3D steel profiles in the Detailing toolset (if it is a steel truss), and create an an Auto Hybrid object (Menu > AEC > Create Auto Hybrid) that can display correctly in 2D and 3D.

    Auto Hybrid objects are created from pure 3D geometry, and as a consequence cannot contain any 2D or hybrid objects.

    If you do have trusses/girders that are repeated, you can create a 3D symbol from their geometry and and create multiple auto-hybrid objects from that 3D symbol. Do not create a symbol of an auto-hybrid object, as it can create weirdness. Does that make sense?

    Cheers.


  16. Hello Vectorworks boffins!

    With the new project sharing features of Vectorworks 2016 I have been rethinking how files are setup. I am wondering if there is a general consensus on how people structure projects. I also realise there may be differences between smaller projects (e.g. single residential), and large projects and those on big sites.

    Some background — our projects are mostly medium sized commercial, education and interiors.

    Okay now onto setup. in the past I have recommended;

    -Keeping the building file separate to the site, survey and associated works file.

    -The building file to use storeys and set story level relative to a ground level of 0.000 (not a real reduced level).

    -Referencing the building into the site file, and raising, and rotating the building into it’s correct position on site.

    The reasons for doing this are;

    -When you use real levels for building file storeys, the building can be a huge distance in the air, and can be problematic rotating in 3D.

    -Working at angles is not as easy as working perpendicular to the page (obviously if a building has unusual geometry then this can not be helped).

    -If you have more than one building on a site, this is a way to assign each building within a project team.

    -I like to keep the survey as the master location for the file. While I could rotate the survey, with geo-surveys each team member should overlay the survey master. Additionally, a survey can be updated a number of times over a project, and it is far easier to be able to bring it into the correct location each time.

    -When exporting out IFC, I will export the model out of the site file, so that the building and the site are exported out in their real position.

    -References can be stripped out if necessary to keep building files smaller.

    -Separating the bustling and site drawings also partly protects against file corruption. If one file goes bad, you don’t loose it all.

    The problems with doing this are;

    -Editing site information and building plans at the same time is frustrating, and takes time when switching between files.

    Should I be;

    -Keeping it all within the one file?

    -Drawing the plans in their real location, and just put up with the frustrations of rotating plans and 3D views being way off screen?

    I hope that was clear. Thank you in advance for your thoughts.…


  17. Hi Alan,

    Yes attributes scaling is a very handy tool for both 2D and 3D work. I am surprised how many people are not aware of it capabilities.

    PS You know you can also use attribute mapping to scale hatches and textures, right? Eg. You can use a 100x100 tile hatch and scale it for any size square tile.

    Cheers.


  18. Well let's take another look at this shall we... By my reckoning, we already do have canted walls. Well not exactly using wall objects, but via the Auto-Hybrid Object.

    If you start with a wall style, change to top view and convert to 3D geometry (or create your 3D from scratch).Then you can add (for wall cants) and subtract (for openings) 3D geometry.

    Once you are finished with your geometry, then you can convert to Auto-Hybrid Object. You should be able to display components (from 3D geometry) in the object display settings.

    Make sense?


  19. Besides the Vectorworks apps already mentioned, you might like to try these couple of pro apps (with pro prices). Both apps by ex-Apple engineers — which is usually code for above average to very good.

    Duet Display (duetdisplay.com) - to use the iPad as an external monitor, especially when on the road. Works quite well for me, but with my older Macbook Pro, suspect newer models would work even better.

    Astropad (astropad.com/ipad/) - to use the iPad as a tablet (similar to a Wacom Cintiq). I haven't tried this, but looks amazing. Not sure what wondrous code they use to get this working. As I often use a Wacom Intuos for Vectorworks, am keen to know how this would work.

    PS I also use Notability syncing between iPad and Mac, that I am sure would be a dream for sketching with all that space.

 

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...