Matt Panzer

You welcome James. Glad to help.

Hi James, Here's one way to do it. This script simply edits all rectangles in the file (no need to select them). Depending on what you want, you could expand the criteria to include only visible rectangles on the active layer, etc. You may want to look at the ForEachObjectInLayer or ForEachObjectInList calls. These may help you get better control depending on your situation. HTH --------------------------------------------------- PROCEDURE MAIN; {-----------------------------------------} PROCEDURE EditRect( ObjHand : HANDLE ); BEGIN SetWidth( ObjHand, 200 ); ResetObject( ObjHand ); END; {||||| MAIN ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||} BEGIN ForEachObject( EditRect, T = RECT ); ReDrawAll; END; RUN(MAIN); ---------------------------------------------------

Thanks Jonathan! That temporary masking tip probably looks quite familiar to you - being that you came up with it. ;-) It seems that many users are unaware that CameraMatch can be used for interior views just as well as exterior. This is is a big reason I wanted to create this. This video also shows the quality results you can get with very minimal modeling of existing conditions.

Check out our new CameraMatch video: Cafe Interior Partition Demonstration

No. The Line render modes are not Renderworks modes, so Renderworks won't help.

As far as I know, you can only change the lightness of the line and the dash style through the "Line Render Options" (in the render popup).

Yikes! I didn't realize that. I hope they change it too. It's inconsistent with how textures work - whereas you CAN change the mapping and keep the texture by class.

Yes. The problem is that there is no way to set the default size of the image fill. Once you draw the object, you can click on the "Image Fill Settings" button (to the right of the image popup) in the Attributes palette and set the size there, or use the Image Mapping Tool to interactively set it. It would be nice to have this setting in the Class Attributes.

Hi Don, Have you tried setting the font size of the text block to the desired size? I'm thinking that VW may think the text is much smaller than it is within the text block, but setting the size will hopefully reset it. If you have multiple sizes of text in it, this may not be ideal, otherwise it'd be worth a shot.

Probably the best way to do it is to create a Renderworks Background from the JPG file and set the design layer to use it. The problem is that you'll then need to get the document in the same perspective view as the render background (the JPG image). If I were doing this, I'd create some very basic reference objects (existing objects visible in the photo) that can help when setting the view, then I'd use CameraMatch (CM) to set the view. While CM is designed to set the view within a viewport, once the view is set, you can edit the viewport's design layers (by right-clicking the viewport and choosing "Edit Design Layers") and VW will bring you to the design layer set to the same perspective view. Once in the design layer, make sure the Renderworks background is set to the layer so you see it in Renderworks render modes. I'd then create a saved view so that I can quickly get back to the view in case I need to change the view while creating objects. The only problem is that you will need to work in a render mode to see the Render Background (the fastest mode being OpenGL). Also, drawing in a perspective mode over the image may work ok for a schematic for the client, but it will likely be fairly inaccurate. FYI: While CameraMatch has some great tools for superimposing a rendered model over a photo background, the main part of the plug-in is for matching the perspective view of the photo. You could try the process I described above and try manually setting the perspective view without CM, but I predict that to be time consuming and frustrating. While I may be somewhat biased ;-) , I'm sure other CM users out there would agree.

Try this function: SetCustomObjectSelectionGroup This lets you create a group of objects representing the highlighted parts.

Thanks for the update Tim. Good to hear you've rectified the problem.

Hi Sleg, I don't think you can prevent the PIO from regenerating on a parameter change. It's a built-in behavior. You could create a dialog (with it's parameters in it) and have it display via a button in the OIP (or a double-click on the PIO). Of course this will require the dialog code to be written and the PIO would need to be event enabled. If you did this, the PIO would not regenerate until you exit the dialog (after setting any number of parameters).

Hi Tim, I have yet to come across a third party plug-in that breaks other parts of Vectorworks - and I've used a fair share over the years. Either you're using some really questionable plug-ins, or something else is amiss.

Dan, Some unsolicited advice: I highly recommend using Custom Renderworks settings and experimenting with the settings to get the fastest render that still gives you acceptable results. I've rendered 2 minute animations at 30 fps that took 16 - 20 hours to render. If I used FWRW mode, the time may have more than doubled. An hour of experimentation could save you many hours to render the sequence. Also, after running a test animation in wireframe (as Peter suggests), I would also run one in your final render mode at 1 fps. This will give you good check render frames to see if the model and textures are as expected along the way. It will also give you a very good idea as to how long the full animation will take to render. Take the time it takes to render the 1 fps animation and multiply it by the fps you plan for the final animation.

Incredible work Mark! You're definitely pushing Vectorscript to it's limits, IMO. It'll be interesting to see what you can do with this if/when you get it into the SDK. Best of luck on such a challenging endeavor.

You're welcome Farookey, And there's plenty more typos where that came from. :-) Good to hear the boss love it! As for your other request, that would take some time to look into to see if it can be done. Then it would take some more time to write. I'm afraid this could get into more time than I can spare. Sorry...

Hi Farookey, Here's a version with an AlertQuestion dialog. To get at the "Save as PDF" you would (as you mention) need Applescript. ---------------------------------------------------- DoMenuTextByName('print', 0); CASE AlertQuestion ( 'Would you like to print to PDF?', 'You will be required to save the PDF through the PDF menu in the Print dislog.', 1, 'Print to PDF?', 'No Thanks', '', '' ) OF 1: DoMenuTextByName('print', 0); END; {CASE} ----------------------------------------------------

Sorry for irritating you Al. You've made me realize that it's not nice to be rude and irritate people. Best of luck to you.

Al, The problem with creating and rendering the file in VW 2010 is that the textures, lighting, and settings could be better suited for the RW 2010 engine. RW 2011 is completely different and, while NV has worked hard to try to translate those textures and settings to the new engine, there's only so much they can do. A true test would be to create the file in VW 2010, then recreate it in VW 2011 using all VW 2011 textures, etc. I don't mind helping out when I can, but I'm not going to spend the time recreating something to try to prove to myself your point and I have a feeling most others on this list won't either. How much do you expect for free help?

Al, A little respect towards those who are willing to go out of there way to help you can go a long way. If you give these boards a chance, you may find them indispensable (as I and many other users do). Many regulars on these boards are very experienced and willing to help. Many are the most experienced Vectorworks users I know (in my 17+ years using Vectorworks). As for your issue, why not upload your file? When moving older VW files to 2011, I did have to make some adjustments to textures and lighting, but I'm very happy with the results. How can we prove your point to ourselves when we don't have the same file you have?

Hello Monkey (if that is your real name) ;-) If you're taking the photos yourself, you could stake out a rectangular area that you could use to place the control points in CameraMatch on. If these stakes could be placed so that they relate to the location of the model, you should be able to do it. Just make sure to place the stakes so that they all reference a points that are level to each other. If their tops are not level to each other, you could tie a bright colored ribbon on each to mark them at the same elevation. If these stakes are placed within the area that the model will be, they should be hidden by the model when you use CameraMatch. Also, when taking the photo, make sure you don't take it with the camera close to being level to the points you stake out so you can use all 4 sides of the rectangle to locate the vanish points. As far as using hedgerows, they'd have to be straight and level. But I'm not sure if you could get accurate enough references to locate the vanish points with them. Let me know if you have any other questions. Best regards,

You're welcome Will, Nice CameraMatch Renderings! Would you like to share these on our online gallery? CameraMatch Gallery If so, please email me privately.

In addition to Jonathan's description, AW also allows multiple cameras to be placed along the path. Each camera can have a specified travel time along it's segment of the path, can have their own target, and can transition from its settings (target, lens angle, etc.) to the settings of the next camera along the path. This allows you to move smoothly along a path while having the camera looking at a specific object, then transition to another target. This is what gives you the smoothness and control. In the flythrough movie I posted, you can see the camera begin to pan to the left as it nears the end of the alley. This helped to give a more natural feeling.

I have to say that even the simplest of plug-ins (like the "Group to None Class) can increase productivity significantly. While managing plug-ins is something to consider, the increased productivity will FAR outweigh it.