quigley

I'd second that - a small (A4 sized) notebook is the way to go. Apple if you use Apple, others if you use PCs! Problem with PDAs is that to geta decent one you are already lugging around something the size of an A5 notebook (paper one that is!). Then there's the keyboard....

On Mac OSX I use Carbon Copy Cloner to creat disk images of the system and application folders and all work in progress to external drives. This works well. For everyday backups I use Deja Vu (which comes with OSX) to backup work folders to two back up drives (one internal the other external). These are scheduled to set off daily. Never tried iDisk syncing but that should work (in theory). On Windows XP I burn DVDs every week of work folders. Applications and System stuff on Windows is too hard for me to get my head around (!!) so I resort to having redundant hardware with the same system and software installed. In theory the work files whould be enough. Once you have had a 40GB drive and an 80GB drive die within 2 weeks you take no chances again!!

This offer isn't an Apple one G-Pang, just that particular reseller. Best time to buy a new Mac or PC is immediately after they launch new models - especially if the VAR/manufacturer has old stock! I've picked up some real bargains over the years on "old" machines.

Yes its a new machine. Macwarehouse UK. Offer ends 3rd June. You need to add the RAM yourself. It comes with a free iPod shuffle but you can talk them into not adding that and giving you a bigger hard drive or more RAM. The G5 itself is the base single processor model (so its like the G5 iMac power wise). For the same sort of cost I felt it was a better deal for us - 4GB RAM really will come in handy for other apps!! BTW RAM may not be critical for everyday usage in VectorWorks but as soon as you get into big 3D models and rendering it will be.....as it is if you also happen to have Entourage, Word, Excel, Acrobat and Photoshop open at the same time :-)

Thanks guys, In the end I've opted for the G5 Tower witha Cinema display - got a deal that was too good to miss!! Its loaded with 4GB RAM as this will come in handy for a lot of things (we do a lot of 3D work in other apps). Thanks again

We are upgrading our Macs soon from G4 400s with 21" CRTs. Currently we run VW mainly on Windows machines but I do have needs to run VW on Mac (we do run it on the G4s but its slow). I'm baulking at the costs of a new G5 Powermac as I do like the value the 20" G5 iMac offers - for example - I can get a 2GB RAM iMac for about the same price as a base model G5 with the same RAM and hard drive. Anyone using the G5 iMac with VW? If so how does it perform. Any problems with overheating (this seems to have been raised in many Mac forums)?

I wasn't suggesting getting rid of tools as such, just getting rid of duplication - as Jonathan says. The other gripe is that many tools do not do what you would think they do - ege - 3D reshape works on some objects but not others. I'd like to see less confusion in the bog standard application. Workspace editing is a solution but not I think for those firms with multiple seats using team design where users often switch around. In situations like these a good basic interface is what is needed.

What are they trying to machine? 2D profile (pockets) or full 3D surfaces? I've no direct experience of using Surfcam but I did runa test export from VectorWorks into VX CAD/CAM as an IGES and it works fine. One thing, when you export the IGES did you check the option to convert solids to trimmed surfaces? If not then maybe try that. Another thing, SurfCam is available with a range of plug in modules for direct kernal based translation from Parasolids, ACIS or CATIA. If your machineshop uses these try the export via ACIS as this should work fine. As for dimensions the answer is don't bother! They won't transfer. When doing any exports to manufacturing your main criteria should be the quality of the geometry. Annotations on files are just a waste of disk space. What we do is export the core geometry alone and supply a separate hardcopy or pdf of a drawing showing top/front/side views with a few overall key oor critical sizes, and the overall "bounding box" size of the part. If the toolmaker opens the file they can then see if the file is looking like the drawing and the they can use the verification and measurement tools in the CAM software to check the dimensions are the same. If scaling has occured (as it will do sometimes) then they can use the bounding box sixes to caluculate the scaling factor.

As VectorWorks adds more and more tools it appears to be the case that the interface is clogging up with duplicate tools or tools that have very similar functionality. Eg. trim on the toolbar, trim in the menus - they are not the same but could be. This is one of many. I'd like to see a ground up revamp to weed out these tools and merge them into one multifunctional tool, or just dump them altogether! Flexibility is great but it also makes for cluttered interfaces!

Mike, I'm not familiar with ArchiCAD but I'll try and check it out to see what its like. As for VectorWorks, it seems that the following holds true: The length of the witness line (from point to dimension text line) is fixed at the length you set when you create it. So, ina chain scenario if you reshape a set of points the dims will move as well. What you should be able to do is lock the chain to other elements in the chain so they stay in line. Maybe a simple preference like "lock to first dimension line"? I also suspect that the dims are linked to points on entities in the first case. When those entities change the points move, so the dims update. When the entities format changes (eg it is deleted or converted to another type) the point reference changes so the dimension reference switches to an absolute reference point in space. I think in both cases a simple preference setting would be to "retain associated dimension points" for changes, or "delete associated dimensions" for deletions. I can't see how these issues would be that hard to resolve. The app already has the functionality built in in different places (like the 2D constraints).

Associative dimensions - what exactly does this mean in the real world? Vectorworks does associate the dimension to the dimensioned entities pretty well I think for a non constrained system. What do I mean? Well, in the MCAD sector most 3D systems generate 2D shapes using what is called constraints systems. Here you can draw, say a rectangle, add a couple of dimensions then edit the dimensions directly and the rectangle will update. VectorWorks kind of does this but not particularly well. I think Mike, what you need is a true 2D cosntrained diemnsioning system as I describe. Only by going this way will you get true associativity. But going this route opens many other cans of worms! Before VectorWorks can go down this route though I think it needs ageneral spring clean of tools, commands and some interface elements. Personally I find a lot of the naming conventions and tool repitition within VectorWorks to be very confusing for the user. For example the constraints pallete should be the snaps pallette should it not? (As I'm sure it once was in Minicad days). And the last row on the 2D tools pallette should be the Constraints tools! BTW you can turn off the red squares - go Edit - Display or Hide Constraints.

Yes, in the worksheet, right click on the arrow in the database header row, and choose edit criteria. Then in the dialogue click on more choices. The ability to choose other selection criteria is here (including layers).

quote: Originally posted by Ramon P: The important thing is trying to communicate exactly what you want the builder to do, without the hassle of interpretations. If you give the buiilder an exact model with all specs attached there would not be, in theory, that problem. Bigger building companies, as Chris says, will redo the various elements of the CDs in what we call over here shop drawings (SDs) for fabrication. The designer will then confirm that the SDs are what he wants. And of course a model would also help the designer avoid loose ends and unmatching (incongruent?) corners and element that you almost always get, and builders love to exploit, when working 2D. I can remember that Michaelangelo's St. Peter's dome was first built in scaled models. The model supposedly cost as much as a small church of the times. Michaelangelo and St. Peter's Dome? Sistine Chapel maybe :-) This is a very good thread. Coming from a product design and engineering background we have moved into supplying toolmakers (our builders) with 3D CAD data files. Toolmakers/manufacturers will then modify the data sets as required to fit in with their methodologies for making the tools/parts. In the product design sector we have used rapid prototyping for many years as a validation method of the CAD design - there is no substitute! Even this is not perfect though. Its interesting that the cosntruction sector is now being targetted by established MCAD businesses like Dassault with CATIA (ref Frank Gehry). The ideal being a single building model which is used and updated by architect and contractors. To be honest this already happens in most big projects already with 2D data sets - Microstation being a well established exponent of this. The problem for all is that once you go down this route you need to define the areas of responsibility and have very stringent control mechanisms in place for editing the master model. The "danger" of the 3D approach is that one small edit may parametrically propogate through the whole model/drawings sheets/BOM/Schedules - I've seen this happen time and time again in the MCAD sector - it hurts!! Seriously though, your point about loose ends hits the nail on the head! As the 3D model (or even physical model come to that) becomes the core method of data transfer the onus of responsibility for the project shifts to the designer/architect. It will no longer be sufficient to draw a few lines and add a few notes! This move requires a total redesign of the design process itself, but when it comes to it there still has to be an understanding of what can and cannot actually be achieved when the project is built. In the MCAD and engineering sector there is a whole generation of designers who have been brought up with 3D design using 3D CAD and analysis. There has been, in my opinion, far too much emphasis on the "how to use the CAD system," approach to learning and less on the "what can a manufacturer actually achieve". As a result we have CAD perfection and often, inferior reality simply because the designer does not consider that the manufacturer really can't mate two parts together with a 0.0004mm accuracy or drill a 1mm diameter hole 100mm down!! So moving to a 3D master model means no loose ends, a better undertsanding of what can be achieved on site AND a more open attitude to keeping lines of communications open with all parties involved in the project and - most importantly - learning to compromise on design features! Problem is clients will expect to see the reality of the CAD perfection you won the contract with! Maybe thats why the trend is back to more artistic presentations :-) [ 05-13-2005, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: KQ ]

Yes it can be done. In VectorWorks its a manual process though. Check out this site: http://www.laminadesign.com/index.html For plate 5mm thick you will have to consider bend radii and location of the neutral (bend) axis. True sheet metal systems build this data into the unfolding process. If you are getting the stairs cut by laser or plasma do NOT assume the bend neutral axis is at the 2.5mm level in the material - you will get the wrong shape. Best bet is to tell the stair cutter what you want and let them do the unfolding. Apps like Radan (virtually the sheet metal industry standard system) can unfold imported data files easily. Export as a IGES.

I think this needs to be an essential new feature for VW12. Autocad 2005 has it, as do a lot of the MCAD 3D apps out there. There are numerous applications for this. Take, for a example, a company who produce layouts for office furniture. They have a symbol library for every part and configuration of unit. They will assign a code to every item on the plan. If the code is in the symbol the number or text will rotate with the symbol (and we are not just talking 90 or 180 degrees here - it is any angle). The resultant drawing is a mess. What they do instead is create symbols for the codes and apply these manually to the plan so the codes are all in the same orientation. Trust me, this is a tedious waste of valuable time. There should be an option in the text box properties to "fix orientation (to whatever it was set at)". This will also require a locus point to apply the rotation around. When the symbol with text is dropped in and rotated, the text stays horizontal, say. This way the drawing looks clean. Also, this also gives much more power to the linked records in symbols. Sure there may be concerns about where the text rotates to but if you have a locus point this should be minimised. By the same score if we could assign this property to graphic elements as well (like a leader and balloon) this would really make symbols much much more useful in tight deadline production environments AND reduce scope for errors! If nemetschek don't do this then there must be a plug in developer out there who sees the value in this - maybe by also creating automatic links to worksheets as well in some way?