quigley

Absolutely correct! Get the interface right and the power will follow. Not to mention an exponential increase in VW 3D usage. The other factor as well is that the file structure needs to be resolved for dealing with single building 3D models. Here in the UK the standard practise is to have one file per sheet and using work group referencing. The default recommended VW practise is to have multiple sheets per file all referencing the model layers. Compared to what happens in MCAD systems you have the Part file, the assembly file and the drawing file. Where the assembly references the part and the drawings reference the assembly and part. This creates lots of files but it does let the developers build software that can handle assemblies with tens of thousands of parts, and on something like a car or aircraft most those parts will be complex surfaces not prisms. All the MCAD systems that continue to use a single file for everything approach are falling out of favour - bar none. As you so rightly say - performance is key. I think VW needs to move to this file structure as it develops into a mature BIM design product. After all how can one file contain a model and associated drawing sheets for an airport terminal for example? The MCAD assembly/part/sheet structure can handle this.

Totally agree. Hybrid technology is perhaps VW's key asset - so why restrict it to plan? The fact that a PIO cannot recreate exact 3D geometric detail is not relevant if this were the case as the user could simply draw the section or elevation detail they need (like they would in a viewport annotation) and the 3D could be kept simple and restricted to the visible parts for renderings. This in turn would speed up the display as the app was not calculating all the hidden lines for each object. This way users can utilise manufacturer's details in 2D format without the overhead of recreating them as 3D objects.

This is a feature I'd like to see incorporated into the wall tool or made as a new tool - ideal for renovation work. The plan would need to beome "horizontal section" though...

Precisely the point Petri! Over the last 15 years my tiny business has bought and used: SolidWorks, ThinkDesign, Think ID, VX CADCAM, Ashlar-Vellum Cobalt, FormZ, DesignWave (which became Pro/Desktop), VectorWorks, Graphite, Cinema 4D, SketchUp, and many more I can't even recall now....why...the great Quest for the Ultimate 3D CAD system! Now I am older and wiser and have an accountant who complains when I decide to spend thousands on software, I have come to the conclusion that: There is no ultimate system AND It is better to use a basic tool with a good interface well than an all singing all dancing tool with a bad interface badly.

I am not arguing that VW has a poor 3D interface - it has. I have used VW since Minicad 3 and to be frank the actual mechanics of the interface for 3D has not changed much since those days. My background is in product design and engineering - hence my comparison to BIM with MCAD PLM - and it is relevant, as building design is moving in the same digital direction. VW is aimed at the design end of BIM but BIM is in its infancy in terms of actual on the ground use and actual on the ground understanding - I would estimate that AEC/BIM is about where MCAD and PLM was about 10 years ago....and look how the tools have changed in 10 years. If you want to see examples of fluid interfaces that are just coming out look at http://www.spaceclaim.com/ The other major issue is that there are no genuine standards for structuring projects to cater for BIM in the longer term so architects and project managers structure things around what they already do - and is this the best long term approach? The danger for for the fledgling BIM is that somebody like Autodesk comes along with a tool like Revit and wipes the floor because their marketing and user base dominates. If you take the analogy from PLM, those companies that have fully implemented it in digital design, analysis, costing, procurement, maintenance etc - like Boeing - tend to settle on one core system - CATIA v5. The result of this is that the supply chain also settles on CATIA v5. There are always spaces for specialist products that work with CATIA but they are nothing more than that - niche markets. The danger for VW is that it gets sidelined into being a niche product aimed at housebuilders or small practises. Nothing wrong with that but for NNA to really make profits they need the big accounts, and without profits you don't get new features or even improvemnets in existing ones. So, apologies for the ramblings! Getting back on track I would recommend you give 2008 a try as it really does offer a lot of genuine improvements over earlier versions. All I would say is that the trend in product enhancement is very much towards the added value modules like Architect etc. Most of the new features are in those modules. You cannot really compare games technology to 3D CAD. Games systems are low polygon optimised for rendering "tricks". 3D CAD needs actual surface data. Sure we can learn a few tricks but even if you take an app like SketchUp, which is often held up as being a great OpenGL interface (shadows, textures, clipping etc) as soon as the model gets to even moderate complexity it slows to a crawl on even the highest spec machines. the 3D MCAD companies invest a lot of energy is optimising OpenGL (or DirectX now) code to speed things along, hence why "proper" 3D certified cards are so expensive. I have great hopes for VW. This release has seen a totally new 2D interface with rotate plan. Versions 2009 and beyond will hopefully see great strides in a new 3D interface. Once we have that - once people can use the tools that are already there - easily - then we can concentrate on fine tuning the toolset for particular applications.

Photoshop will allow you to skew the perspective (I assume Photoshop Elements will as well). SketchUp Pro will let you import a photograph and generate a reasonably accurate model from it. Not sure if this is available in the free version though.

Building Information Modelling.....BIM is about information, and much of the drive for BIM comes from the property developers and managers. BIM is akin to PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) in MCAD. Modelling is but one part of the equation. VectorWorks is aiming at the design end of BIM, but the critical element is to allow the design end to interface with other aspects such as databases and engineering analysis - hence the IFC plug in. The key lesson to be learned from MCAD PLM is that it is not just about drawings and presentation - indeed for the system to fully work there have to be compromises over visual standards. Let's face it, what is more important - a pretty drawing that is approximate or a function document that is correct, and can be utilised from design through to demolition. Of course drawings are important, and they always will be, but as VW develops the other aspects will come to the fore.

Not quite the same. If you draw a wall and flip the view to isometric, then draw a rectangle (a 2D one) the 2D select tool will select and resize the rectangle and select and translate the wall, but not edit it. Whereas the 3D select tool will not move or resize the rectangle but will let the 3D elements be moved and resized. I grant you that this is an areas that could be cleaned up - maybe for VW2009? But until we get a true unified 2D/3D modelling environment (like say FormZ) there is not much point.

No. A sloped wall (by which I assume you mean tapering in thickness as it rises as opposed to one end being taller than the other - which is easy to do) would need to be modelled using the solid modelling tools - multiple extrude or sweep would be good options.

2 selection arrows - you like Adobe has had in Illustrator since day 1? The selection arrows do serve different purposes as you can draw pure 2D (screen plane) in a 3D layer

Alternatively save the scan as a pdf and import the pdf into VW and draw over it and recreate in VW.

Yes. You can for example select different sizes and shapes of windows or doors in multiple walls and change the parameters of the selected items to make them all the same, or indeed change one aspect to make the same (eg width). This is ging to be THE biggest timesaver for many VW users

Yes these things do happen (or did happen in 12) but without specifics it is hard to analyse. One the biggest (I think) benefits of VW 2008 is the ability to select multiple windows in a wall......so at least editing any issues/bugs will be a bit easier (not that that helps).

Sorry but what's wrong with the fillet tool in 12.5? I use it every day. If the fillets don't "take" use the split only mode and remove the excess manually. I can assure you that filleting by the trim and split mode is rone to error in EVERY CAD system - even ?6500 softwares like SolidWorks have issues with this in certain cases. Point is there is always a workaround.

Just spotted this one and as a SolidWorks user I'll pitch in.... Firstly let's be clear here. SolidWorks and VectorWorks are two totally different beasts. If you are modelling and drafting very simple objects and all you need are drawings then VectorWorks may be OK. If you treat the 3D system as a component of a complete design system though VectorWorks doesn't cut the mustard as we say. Modelling is SW is faster and easier and a lot more robust than in VW. Yes VW has some nice Plug ins like chains and gearing but then you can get manufacturer's parts in SW format as well. I don't think it is fair to compare VW to SW anyway. VW is 1/5 the cost of SW here. A better comparison would be say Alibre Design, which works in a similar manner to SW (eg parts/assemblies/drawings). In terms of integration with FEA I'm not sure you have had the best advice. Algor has full integration with SolidWorks and all popular MCAD 3D systems. If you set up an FEA analysis in Algor if you then return to SW to change the model those chnges are refelected in Algor. Pretty much all the FEA systems available have this connection now to popular 3D systems - ANSYS, ALGOR, COSMOS etc. Indeed, I think Algor offer a version of Albre Design as the front end modeller for the ALGOR FEA systems. Getting data from VectorWorks into FEA is also simple - export as a ACIS .sat file - this will import into most systems, or at the very least if you are using Algor and Alibre - import the .sat file into Alibre Design and run the Algor FEA from there. Your point about VW having links into FEA is valid not only for MCAD but for AEC design. But before that happens NNA need to overhaul the 3D side and make it work like their competitors.

Thats a first for me - never even noticed that before. Only applies if you select a filled object or the edge of an unfilled object or a curve.....bug? Maybe not, maybe a feature!

You can check the exact feature set for each by following the product links on this page: http://www.nemetschek.net/upgrade/index.php I can't answer the question about rotated plan but from reading the Fundamentals drafting page it appears it is not in the base package.....which was news to me.

Safe to say it is incorrect!

Stack layers is a feature that is only available in the modules higher than Fundamentals. You can check your modules by going to the VectorWorks preferences - session -serial numbers. It will tell you the enabled products allowed by your serial number. If your product is licensed as above Fundamentals you will have stack layers functionality, but you may have to switch it on by editing the workspace - just drag the Stack Layers from the view menu list on the left to the view menu on the right (or whereever you want it.

What's wrong with the snapping and selection in 2d? VW has one of the best "smart" cursors on the market in 2D. 3D is another matter I admit.

They show walls with components as shown in plan view unless you section through an area where there are more than one type of wall (eg ground floor brick course with cladding above) in which case it will section the components it finds. If you mean (as I think) that will it show things like insulation and the like then no, those are manually drawn on as a viewport annotation as in 12.

Christiaan, think of the rotated plan in 2008 as being the ability to rotate a sheet of tracing paper on a drawing board like we used to do. I think the intention was to let users handle splayed plan forms more easily such that in working on a 2 winged building, say, where one is vertical in plan and the other is at 30 degrees, you can now rotate the plan so the 30 degree wing is horizontal and the XY co-ordinates rotate accordingly. In terms of setting global XY positions that will still depend on the origin and the global XY axes.

Does what it says on the tin. Create a section viewport and you can choose to display the components within the wall. Note that this is only for section viewports so users of Fundamentals don't get this.

It depends very much on what kind of work you are doing. There have been many improvements to 3D in 2008, not least of all the ability to select multiple PIOs (windows, doors etc) in a wall and move them at the same time, not to mention snapping changes in 3D. I think this is probably the best upgrade in a many many years for the majority of users in a production environment.

I'm curious about this as well. I think we need to define what a PIO actually does as opposed to how it is created? To my simple mind a PIO is simply a device to allow a user to create a 3D and 2D object by entering in parameters (width, height, number of parts etc etc), and, importantly, to attach non visual data to (like cost, manufacturer, U value etc). VectorWorks already provides a huge library of PIOs which can be adapted to many needs. Furthermore these PIOs can be broken down to component 3D parts and "tweaked" to give exactly the 3D data that is needed - VW is actually a fairly powerful 3D modelling application - the 3D interface is just poor at the moment. So, the process of generating the 3D elements needed is actually fairly simple if you combine a PIO with existing 3D tools. The issue is then that the resultant 3D object is just a dumb 3D object that cannot be converted back into a PIO for easy tweaking of parameters. The non visual data can still be tagged - so that is not an issue. The other problem is that all VW PIOs and indeed 3D do not interact with the data in a way other than simple adding and calculation of volumes and surface area. For example you cannot swap one window PIO with another and then have VW automatically calculate updated U values (well if you can I'm not aware how!). So the question is what are the PIOs being used for in your projects. If they are intended for use in a full on 3D CATIA like BIM environment then you can start weeping now. If, on the other hand, you want to generate objects that can be added to models and drawings to which you can tag data and use for worksheets and reporting then VW is extremely flexible, providing you with (probably) the best all round 3D modelling tools in a production AEC system at the price point, and ways of manipulating the data side in a flexible format. From my point of view, the supplied PIOs do a good job but there are always cases where the detailing is not right - especially in sections and wall joins. The other issues is the placement of PIOs in relation to each other and in relation to other objects. I think this is where Revit and Archicad are far superior (from my limited exposure to both). On the one side VW is easy to drag parts around, on the other hand if you go changing things it takes more remedial work to repair.