Jershaun

Hi Jim, Thanks for all the info for the upcoming release. Seeing the resource manager is getting a face lift, will we be able to now create material folders and sub-folders? Also, I'm not a fan of "finder" on Mac and I see the new look is based on the finder. Will the PC users get a "Windows Explorer" look? With regard to project sharing, seeing you say individual objects can be checked out, can multiple people now work on a level at the same time. How exactly does this work? Is it going to be like Revit where if a user touches an object, Revit tells everyone that object is borrowed by a user? Is the process automatic like Revit or does a user have to manually check out an object (in a dialogue box) each time they realize they need to use it? Most importantly for me, has there been any attention paid to the Cinema 4D connection. I know there has been 1 bug in particular that did not exist in 2015 but appeared in 2016-sp1. I sent a file over showing the big and it still hasn't been fixed in sp3. Will there be any improvements/fixes to the Cinema 4D connection in vw2017? Thanks,

Hi Jim, If you would like feedback, you can check out my post from a few years ago in the link below. https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=33003&Number=162504#Post162504 The above shows the extremely bad export organisation of the current connection. Organisation is extremely important in c4d especially with regard to animation. The old plug in was extremely good with regards to this. It was also extremely good when it came to material export. We could export using current textures or colours without duplication of replacing. The wheel didn't have to be reinvented. The old plug in should have been used as a basis and other features, if required, could have been added to it. The link below is also to another thread of mine where I show the geometry issues of vw. I must admit the geometry has been improved since 2012 however, vw still doesn't create clean geometry to the level required by the 3d industry (the world of animation software like 3d Max, Maya, Modo, etc.). If we had to transfer files with other professionals using these applications, we won't be taken seriously, in fact, we'd be considered amateurs-I'm not trying to be nasty, it's just what the industry excepts for productive polygon handling. https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=36313&Number=179183#Post179183 One thing the old plug in lacked was the ability to release the origin point of each object. It was always the 0,0,0 origin of vw. Max/Revit can be relocated in Max and the updates from Revit does not reset it. This is also important when it comes to animation.

+1 Also, speaking of dashed lines, the dash setting in the hybrid object does not work at all. Although you have the tick on, it does not show as dashed (just grey). I would also ask for the settings mentioned above for the hybrid object.

I also agree there should be an option for correct mm settings. In addition, I really appreciate the annotative text features of AutoCAD. I can have different insertion points and different positions of the same text at different scales. Vectorworks can have different sizes however it isn't as powerful as AutoCAD's. Same applies to all settings in dimensions. AutoCAD can have annotative settings applied to dimension styles.

I also agree with zoomer's comments and bug highlights. This is the 5th iteration of the send to cinema feature and there hasn't been any development on it? How can someone remove a perfectly working plug-in like the old c4d export command and replace it with something that doesn't work. It makes no sense.

I think you missed my point. My point was to stop developing renderworks and leave all rendering decisions to c4d. Vectorworks would be fine with the current state of the rendering package for users that don't want to move to c4d. Therefore if there's no development then there's no need to increase the price. The day i have to pay extra for a connection to c4d will be the day i have to suck it up and learn 3DS Max. The reason I'm still sticking with vw is because of c4d and certainly not for any so called ifc features (Revit will be used for any BIM projects). In any case I'm already paying for the c4d connection by buying renderworks

Revit has built in rendering for the basics. Revit includes this in 1 price. Revit to 3DMax is for advanced renderings/animation. ArchiCAD has built in renderings for the basics. ArchiCAD includes this in 1 price. ArchiCAD to C4D is for advanced renderings/animation. Vw should have built in renderings for the basics. Vw should include this in 1 price. Vw to C4D should be for advanced renderings/animation. All I'm saying is, VW already has basic renderings which should still be kept in the software like Revit and ArchiCAD. I'm not saying remove all the existing rendering features, just don't charge us for it. People that do visualisations now have to pay twice for renderworks and c4d. If we don't buy Rw then we don't get ANY connection to c4d (as bad as it is). This is wrong. Also, why is VW wasting time with advanced features. They should be concentrating on other more important issues. Generally, people that use Rw to render are merely using it for basic stuff (which Vw will always have) whereas others that are more serious about renderings use C4D for advanced rendering.

Hi Jim, Sorry to come back to this issue again however this is extremely important to me as I use c4d mainly for presentation work and it's costing me a huge amount of time to get the model to c4d. Do you know if vw2017 will at least have some of this functionality? Even if it's just "by texture" and release of all control to c4d, all my problems would be solved. Thanks.

I agree with Altivec. I would suggest NemV not spread themselves so thin. Even a huge corporation like Autodesk thinks smart. By this I mean, Revit can also do some presentation work but you don't see Autodesk directing Revit at visualizers. They would rather lead visualizers to 3DS Max because they know 3DS Max is the best tool (in their arsenal) for architectural 3D presentations. They would rather provide a solid connection between Revit and Max. Therefore the Revit team can concentrate on BIM and the 3DS Max team can concentrate on what they do best. Instead of wasting resources, NemV should stop developing Renderworks, integrate it into architect and make use of what's available to them. Connect the model to Cinema 4D and release ALL control to C4D. C4D is made for presentations and animations so why not take advantage of that? NemV is just doubling up on work. Maybe if NemV, starts to think smarter, they can be more productive and we the user don't have to wait 10 years for important features. Also, new features won't be half baked eg. Project Sharing. Vw's project sharing will not cut the mustard. Multiple people need to work on any part of the project at the same time even if it means in the same area and same level simultaneously. Instead of doubling up on work (renderworks/c4d) new and old features need to be fully thought through. Instead of adding new half baked features, there is a ton of work to do on existing commands/tools like the stair tool for example. It needs to be researched on how it's constructed from country to country, what components make up the stair-not only tread and riser but handrails, supports, profiles, etc. 2D outputand user control. I would say stop being a Jack of all trades, it's time to choose 1.

Ok thanks Jim. Can you please add it to the official wish list? And thereafter I guess it will be a race between vw and revit to get a workable link to c4d. Cheers,

Hi Jim, Has there been any changes to the send to cinema 4d feature. I'm more interested in the user control of how the model is exported to c4d. Renderworks features don't interest me as I'm a c4d and vray user and I find that vw is always over riding my changes done in c4d. Eg. Materials are replaced in c4d by the original vw ones. Eg. My vray light tags are lost it i update lights. Etc. Etc. I can only work in c4d once all work in vw is completed. I would like to be able to control the way textures are exported. Eg. At the moment vw does what it wants and sends 2 textures to c4d although there is only 1 texture in the vw document. Is there any possibility of bringing back the old export to cinema 4d command? Thanks, Jershaun

Hi, I've been using revit for the past few years and I think it's the best and true BIM package on the market. However, I'm getting back into architectural presentation stuff and I prefer C4D for this type of work which means I have to get back into vw :eek:. (The last time I used vw heavily was vw2008 however I'm well aware of all the new features since. Through demos.) I've been checking this thread out and it seems that project sharing is misunderstood by the vw engineers. Surely, NemV should be looking at the competition and how they implement similar features. eg: The above statement tells me that the vw's project sharing isn't going to be as powerful as Revit's Worksharing. Vw's old workgroup reference system, the project would be split into many files with a level per file which means 1 person can only use the file at a time. The new system is improved slightly by not having to reference files into another however only 1 person can work on a floor/layer at a time. Revit allows multiple users to work on a single floor/level/layer simultaneously-true project sharing. Jim, please correct me if I'm mistaken. As an observation, one synchronises a model with a central file a lot, I mean A LOT. With vw, it take 2 clicks to do this and over the day that's a lot of clicks. Revit has 1 button that takes care of this. Vw should have a button to synchronise the local model to the central model. Also, I didn't use the window tools provided by vw as it doesn't allow me to get the look I wanted in my drawings. Can one create windows with the new Marionette tools with both custom 2D and 3D visualisations and obviously, can Marionette objects be placed into walls with appropriate cut outs? On a general comparison, I enjoy working with revit's elevation/section "levels" where these levels can or cannot determine floor plans. We can generate a full multi-story model and in elevation/section we can have levels where for the typical floors, no floor plans are generated except for 1. In vw, we have to generate unnecessary layers/stories. I also like Revits floor plans as it behaves like cutting planes slicing through the model and 2D representation of objects are handled by Revit (like the Auto Hybrid object but for the whole level and on steroids). I also like Revit's parametric features where one can lock dimensions and relationships of objects. I can go on and on. For sure it does have it's negative however on an overall score, I prefer Revit. Anyway, I'll wait for 2016 and hope it comes close as I really enjoy working with C4D as well.

Hi @Kizza Actually don't miss anything from vw but if I had to choose it would be the smart cursor, linetypes and tile fills. Revit is extremely stable however the project I'm currently on is super large. It's so large that all disciplines have to split their models into various sectors and we then link those files into our revit models. Although all the models are split they still combine to create 1 model and this 1 model is being worked on simultaneously by +/-40-60 modellers in Adelaide, Melbourne & Argentina. Its extremely complicated but revit allows you to do this. The nature of this project is that models take extremely long to open up +/-30min. Most of you would now use this against Revit but I assure you, vw will not come close to handling this project especially it's not 64bit. Btw, I would be lying if I said revit doesn't crash but it's rare and it doesn't crash the system. @StructuralBIMGuy I wouldn't worry about that too much as I won't be using vw for a long time. Put it this way, when Nemetschek allows me to create windows, doors, etc. WITHOUT coding (ala families), then I'll upgrade (which means never? But I also said I'll "never" use Autodesk again).

Hi After being away from vw for almost a year now, I thought I'll test out vw a bit this past weekend. It look me +/-10 minutes to figure out I'll probably not be coming back to vw in it's current state. I downloaded the latest vw2013 & C4D14 and tested them both. Vw still can't handle anything that's non linear, its representation of curved solids is amazingly inaccurate, inconsistent and random. FAIL. Vw doesn't have realtime interactive rendering for hidden line rendering or the other modes. FAIL. There's no interactive elevations and sections. I can't model in these views! FAIL. No multi-core and 64 bit support. FAIL. Non destructive 3D fillets are not supported. FAIL. No 3D hatches! Now that's amazing in the modern age we live in. FAIL! Lack of customisability to roof and stair components. And the MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL: The link between C4D and vw DOES NOT work. Send to C4D, change materials, modify model in vw, send to C4D, all material settings are lost. Also, not all geometry is updated in C4D. This makes the vw/C4D combination unusable. Although Nemetschek owns both these software, it seems these 2 programs are fighting with each other. Autodesk seems to be a much more professional choice, the Revit/3dsMax relationship is far superior to vw/C4D one. MAJOR FAIL!! Because of the above, I've come to the conclusion, if I want to be serious about design, Nemetschek can't be an option. Sad to say especially C4D is such a great tool.

That's a misconception people have that to finish drawings in Revit you need AutoCAD. Why AutoDesk sells AutoCAD with Revit is because: 1. People are long term users of AutoCAD and they're comfortable with it. Therefore they find it faster to do something in AutoCAD than Revit but they don't know that it's actually faster in Revit. It's like the old days when people had difficulty moving from the drawing board to the computer. Also, it's the same problem VW has of pulling people away from their good OLD trusted AutoCAD. 2. It also gives people room for transition. 3. for a safety net for people that think Revit can't do 2D. The most advanced hospital in Australia is being built in Adelaide and the whole project is being done with Revit ONLY. Everyone involved in the project is using Revit. All working drawing are being done in Revit. NO AutoCAD. I can't imagine that project being done by any other software. I'm definitely not a fan of AutoCAD and truly believe that VW is superior to AutoCAD therefore I've used VW for so long and VW is really good at 2D with good 2D tools however similarly, I believe Revit is superior to VW when it comes to 3D and BIM and parametrics and windows and doors and... People need to let go of the past and move on. Forget about AutoCAD, forget about Mac/PC (windows has changed since win95-so stop judging windows based on that). The best solution at present is Revit/PC. Period. NemV thinks small therefore vw will never match Revit, maybe in 5 years but then Revit will be better as well. e.g of thinking small is Instead of making 2D representation global, they create the Auto Hybrid command. Now to have a 3D symbol duplicated numerous times at various 3D orientations and automatically generate 2D, you have to create a Hybrid Object for each of these objects and god forbid you have to alter one of them. This isn't the way in Revit, it's global-so much more advanced.

You'll find that vw can't handle anything that isn't straight. See the below link for other examples. http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=179183#Post179183 That's the advantage of parasolid modelling.

Are you serious? Have a look (a proper look) at the pdf's again and you'll notice they have examples of vw2012 graphical viewports. I don't think I could have labelled it clearer. To reiterate, the pdf's shows vw2012 viewports only AND vw2012 compared to vw2008 AND vw2012 compared to C4D using the same type of geometry. Importing the geometry into C4D is not the problem because vw2008 doesn't have this issue. Also based on the vw2012 viewports, it's clearly visible that the problem is there even before it gets to C4D. The point I'm making is that vw2008 and C4D has better geometry than vw2012. Look at the chair-ipod pdf (only with vw2012). You'll notice in both pages I've included Red Crosses indicating were the problems are and Green Ticks were things are ok. It seems that the higher the geometry resolution is set in vw2012, the more acute the problem is.

Can anyone confirm the geometry issues such as those attached have been sorted out/fixed in vw2013. At present vw is un-usable for me.

tsk, tsk. People, people. How can you all get excited about all these "new" features in vw2013. I mean think about it for a second...... If you were using Revit, you could have been using all these "features" more than 8 years ago. Tsk, tsk, tsk

If you would like to have a better understanding of the advantages of Revit, I'd suggest you have a look at the videos below (Revit Learning 65 - Revit Learning 80) http://www.youtube.com/user/3dmodelsfree

I think it's too little too late. Anyway, typically PIO's gives the user no control or freedom of choice-you can only change values that the programmer wants you to change. PIO's are ancient tech. It would have been better for NemV to invest in proper r&d to come up with a PIO alternative. Agree.

This seems to be a feature I always wanted however from DWorks observations and my experience with NemV, they don't give the user much freedom when it comes to control. I personally don't like (in fact hate) PIO's and now they've made this feature (automatic plan representation) a PIO. I don't use PIO's because I never get it to look the way I want it to look like, in 2D because of the lack of control. That's because they're trying to make vw into something it's not and was never meant to be, a BIM software. The foundation of vw was meant to be a CAD program with good modelling tools.

Trust NemV to make something a "feature" that's not. Anyway this type of redraw was available in vw11 [not vw2011] until they took it out ever since. Also NemV usually has 1 major feature per release so I don't think vw will be challenging Revit anytime soon. For vw to match Revit, it will have to have 5-10 major features in this release alone. Anyway we'll see.

This is what I mean about vw's PIO being rigid and you're at the mercy of the programmers/engineers. With Revit, you don't have these problems.

If Vectorworks was to have that level of 3D modelling as the plm videos, it would have had it by now. Parasolid has been in vectorworks for 4 releases now. The ideal opportunity was to do it with vw2012 after the huge strides NemV made with vw2011 but what they did instead was release vw2012 with nothing extra other than a stupid and unnecessary implementation of what they call storys/stories.