Jump to content

Matt Panzer

Vectorworks, Inc Employee
  • Posts

    2,275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1,039 Spectacular

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Architectural Product Planner
  • Homepage
    www.vectorworks.net
  • Location
    Columbia, Maryland

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you for brining this these to our attention. We're currently looking into both issues.
  2. I see the issue in your file and submitted a bug report. This looks to be a regression from 2022 SP1. we’ll look into this ASAP. I’m not sure if it’s related to the end cap issue but we’ll look into it.
  3. Thanks for submitting this. We’ll get this to the right person to look at.
  4. Also: If your symbol has anything in the Wall Hole component, try selecting it and make sure the new “Ignore Closure” option in the object Info palette is selected. This will tell the wall not to add profiles and wrapping the the hole created from the symbol.
  5. @drelARCH, Can you try copy/pasting the relevant walls into a new file and and send it to me to have a look? Or just send me the whole file if the issue doesn’t show in the new file.
  6. You can select it and use the "Flip Horizontal", "Flip Vertical" command, or Mirror tool. Then rotate it as needed...
  7. I'm definitely zooming in too far on a floor plan! 🤣 Certainly an easy thing to get caught up in. Something you would never think about when hand drawing a floor plan. Of course, we eventually want to cover as many cases as we can moving forward. No problem!
  8. You welcome! Thank you for your suggestions as well! We always want to improve the UI where we can, but it's not always obvious to users (or myself) why we sometimes do what we do. 😉 Good help videos are always good! Yes, posting in the Wish List forum is best to get it more attention. Thanks!
  9. Thanks for your comments. Comments below: There should be "tool Tips" that appear on the screen on Mac when you hover the cursor over the column headers of the list browser. This is a known issue. Those will certain help clear up some of the issues. The Core column is disabled and should not allow and changes, but it does due to a known bug. There are some interactions between the "Wrap To" and "Wrap To Insert" settings. They need to be separate for some more complex wrapping cases. Some of these more complex cases are still being worked out but those are more unusual cases. In any case, the best way to describe having both setting turned on is that the component will wrap to the "Wrap To" location unless it hits the insert first. However, if it hits its "Wrap To" location first and its not yet at the insert, it will continue to find the insert. In order to get these conditions, you probably need to be using a negative Profile Offset. The reason for the Custom Thickness checkmark column is because it allows explicit decisions to use a custom thickness or to return to the walls component thickness. If we didn't have this and the component thickness of the wall was changed, there it would be unclear whether to also change the custom thickness. We did consider some way to be "smart" about how to manage this but, in the end, we think it's best to have it as an explicit option. The preview in the dialog does is more generic and needs to be that way when the dialog is opened for a Wall or Wall Style. It must be for a Wall Style because it has no idea what insert and insert setting will be used. A Wall also doesn't know because it may have no inserts or multiple inserts with different settings. However, when opening the dialog from an insert, we might be able to improve the preview because we do know about the insert. This is something we plan to investigate. These two settings are related but one is a Door or Window Plug-in Object setting and one os part of the general Wall Closure system that other Plug-in object may use. These need to be separate because the Plug-in Object knows about it's own geometry and the setting controls where the geometry is located relative to its insertion point. Other Plug-in Objects may have similar settings or something completely different. They may not even have a "jamb" but some other thing they want to use to wrap to. This is why the "Wrap to Insert" option is not called "Wrap to Jamb". The Insert Location is telling the wall where to locate the Plug-in Object's insertion point within the wall.. So these settings must be separate. I think the reason some of these are separate buttons is because they're opening dialogs that can also be invoked in other places in the UI. The Edit Wall Attribute may be the exception. In any case, we could investigate this. Ah good. I was getting worried something strange was happening! 🙂
  10. While I definitely see why you'd want this, it is working as designed. So this would have to be an enhancement request - not a bug. The wrapping settings are designed as a general system of settings that can meet many different needs. But there are certain limitations as well. Showing a gap between the GWB and the window jamb is arguably a higher level of detail than typically shown in floor plan and would be clarified in a separate detail drawing. Now, I'm not saying that to get us off the hook! We do want this system to solve as many cases as possible. Could you post this as a wish in the Wish List forum? This will help it from being overlooked.
  11. I don't think you need to be worried that we'll make WinDoor disappear in the same release we think our objects can do replace it. While things are still being looked at for all this, we typically have a lot of overlap before dropping support for objects.
  12. While I don't have any official word on details of our plans, I think it's safe to say that we would keep making it available until our objects can reproduce all of its desired features.
  13. Because these are two separate things. E.g. the issue of the missing proper 4-way crossing has nothing to do with introducing major new features but everything with fixing some basic missing tool for which most of the code is already available (i.e. T-crossing) and for which I see no logic why it should be omitted for at least a decade by now. And this is just one example of things that people are (still) complaining/griping about for years. Not just the bigger things but also the relatively simple things that affect daily workflow. Saying that a mid-cycle release of a (somewhat) major new feature wouldn't make fixing any issues faster is.... errr.... well... fixing those long standing issues seems to be progressing at the speed of a paralyzed snail in a tar pit so it begs the question how much faster it could be by not having a mid cycle release of a major new feature. My point was, if the feature is not currently being worked on, adding new internal features in a SP releases won't help to get it in faster. As for why certain long requested features have not yet been added: There's no simple answer. There are a lot a variables at play and that's all I will say about that. It all depends on how big of a stability risk adding that feature would be. Uhmmm.....that implies that if stability decreases then the feature was either not properly tested for stability and therefore should not have been released anyway (see comment above about e.g. issues for a major feature being solved 2 months after major release) or testing quality is not at the level it should be. Because proper testing should always be done and features shouldn't be released if they are causing stability issues... this applies as well to the yearly release which is often causing new issues as well. By the logic of your above statement there should be no major new feature in the yearly release as well because it very could decrease the stability of the software, that is ... apparently it is not that rare that stability issues do happen with the yearly main release ... given the comments about stability issues for the new 2022 version that have been brought up by several people. So I'll repeat... a major new feature should not be released if it causes problems... if testing is done properly then it shouldn't matter whether it is released during the main yearly release or e.g. a few months after that because the likelihood of stability issues should (theoretically) be low either way or at least not worse than with the main yearly release. In my opinion the argumentation about not having a larger feature mid-cycle release and fixing long standing issues not being faster is quite weak. It's not weak at all! Service packs are mainly about fixing bugs and improving the quality of the software in it's current form. Vectorworks is extremely complex software and adding new features can cause unexpected issues that may not surface in testing. So, adding a significant feature in a service pack could cause the software to take steps backward in quality. 👍
  14. See comments below: While I do think it's clear what the Profile Offsets do, I agree that the Offset in the Wall Closure dialog could be better - as well with the other items in that dialog. What is it that you don't find clear about these items? I have a feeling these controls may've been more confusing to exiting users due to how they differ from the previous version. Good suggestions! However, there may be technical reasons some of these are separate dialogs. Since the Wall closure dialog can be called from a Wall Style, a Wall object, and a Wall Insert, we wanted to keep them consistent. I believe the IFC is a standard dialog. However, the Wall Attributes probably could be put in their own tab. These are things we could look into. Strange. It says "Fixed Glass" on my computer in VW 2022 SP1.
×
×
  • Create New...