Jump to content

Jeffrey W Ouellette

Member
  • Posts

    864
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jeffrey W Ouellette

  1. The movie does contain some marketing "fluff" (don't most?). The graphics of the Heliodon do NOT include the large compass "gimbal", just the smaller color graphic widget. I believe this artistic license was taken for illustration purposes ONLY. However, the large compass is a collection of 2D layer plane objects, visible in 3D rendered views. It is something the user could conceivably produce for him- or herself. The 2D graphics of the Heliodon are "screen-based" so, they don't show in a 3D view. In the 3D view, the directional light object indicator can be seen. Besides the option in the Heliodon object, the Vectorworks Preferences option "Display Light Objects" also controls whether it is visible in a rendered view or not.
  2. Vectorworks 2012 is still a 32-bit app, but can be run on 64-bit stations/operating systems. Vectorworks will only address a max of 2.5 GB of RAM. Renderworks/CineRender 2012 (and 2011) is a 64-bit, multi-core application. It is essentially Cinema4D "Lite". When you render a scene with any of the Renderworks modes, the CineRender app runs in the background, parallel to Vectorworks. CineRender will address as much RAM as it needs, but it takes advantage of CPU power over RAM. So more cores, faster processor is better. More RAM helps if you have multiple apps running at one time....
  3. Use the Handrail object. If you're using the Architect workspace, look in the "Furn/Fixtures" tool set. There should be "Straight" and "Curved" tool options.
  4. Kizza, What do you mean? Vectorworks has had native PDF support for both Mac and PC for a LONG time.
  5. Well, I know which camp I am rooting for: http://bit.ly/gflnMW http://buildingsmart-tech.org/certification/ifc-certification-2.0/ifc2x3-cv-v2.0-certification/participants
  6. Eoin, Right now, gbXML is not being considered. IFC is our path. As more products come online with IFC compatibility over the next few months, our users will see options. As well as talking to us, it helps for customers to talk to the vendors of the energy apps to encourage them to support IFC as much as they currently support gbXML. In fact, the vendor support for IFC implementation, by buildingSMART International, has the added benefit of rigor and official certification that gbXML does NOT have. This ensures that the quality of export/import from any app is consistent, reliable, and repeatable. We are currently involved in this effort. I don't see that happening with gbXML. I have heard many horror stories from sim/analysis developers, myself, in using gbXML. In many cases, they would rather see users use built-in geometry tools, with all the limitation, than import another tool's geometry. The only thing missing for the IFC path, right now, is participation from the energy analysis/simulation vendors in these efforts. An energy analysis model is NOT the same as an architectural design model. I think this is the point that seems to escape many designers today. The complexity of inputs, calculations, and outputs of a proper energy analysis/simulation model is beyond the expertise of most architects. It is also why there are applications purpose-built for such analysis and specifically educated and extensively trained professionals in this field. For design work, I believe that comparative studies (three design options, which one is the baseline, which ones are better/worse or good/better/best, as design strategies) between options are valuable, with limited data inputs, and limited geometry. Using a tool like SketchUp and the IES VE-Ware plugins (or HEED, or REScheck/COMcheck), is one way of accomplishing that type of comparative conceptual design analysis, right now. In the not too distant future this may well change. But, the original posting was about what is available NOW. With all the hype surrounding energy simulation/analysis being deeply integrated in the design process, especially by architects, there is a BIG disconnect between what designers think they want and how complex the issues of using the tools, the reliability of the simulations, and the congruence with the actual results really are. I believe in many cases, using common sense design rules, tried and true design and construction methodologies, and consulting with engineers/experts goes much further than trying to do a complex digital simulation yourself. There are whole hornets' nests of issues that need to be confronted and straightened out before integrated simulation solutions can be considered useful or reliable for use by designers everyday, as simply as they may use a tool or command like a wall, door, or window. Issue like: - Which scientific method is the best foundation for the simulation? Why are there different ones? - What are the minimal inputs needed (including extents of geometry and data) to provide a competent simulation/analysis? - What is the point of diminishing returns for the amount/scope of inputs? - What do the results of the simulation/analysis mean and can they really be understood by the end user? - How do the simulations and results compare to reality? - What are the standards that the science, tools, and results are based on? How many different standards are there? Why? How do they differ? Why do they differ? I've seen presentations/demonstrations of energy sim/analysis being done by architects with horrible outcomes/processes/results most of the time because they didn't understand how the tools optimally work (less geometry, more attributes is better) or what the science was behind the tools. In the end, they most often were dissatisfied because of the amount of work and re-work it took to get a competent model out of one system and into another that was usable by the sim/analysis tool, the results weren't easy to interpret, and the sim/anaylsis results set up expectations that weren't met by the real conditions, most often due to factors completely overlooked by the designer. Instead of exacerbating the problem by quickly implementing a indeterminate solution, I would rather have more thoughtful dialogs and development with expertise that produces processes, tools, and results that are known to be usable, reliable, and consistent. That will take some more time.
  7. Right now, it's not. You do a preliminary model, using Sketchup, for instance, to test a concept. I believe that is what is desired, is it not? There are other GUI tools that act as "front ends" to energyplus. But they all are very complex, because the data required for energyplus is very complex. The results are NOT easy to interpret, unless you are trained and skilled at energy modeling and analysis. I think IES provides some interesting tools to be used with SketchUp, for preliminary concept design analysis, but I must admit I haven't seen a great solution yet for designers.
  8. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/
  9. Haresh, Check your Private Messages. I can help you.
  10. Use Pillar. Walls will join to Pillars. 1. draw the desired plan shape of the pillar 2. draw Walls between the Pillars 3. use the Wall Join tool, "T-" and ""open" join modes.
  11. Hi Barry, I can send you a "WIP" script via email. Check your Private Messages.
  12. Are you using the Arc mode of the polyline tool? It looks like the polyline geometry is trying to resolve curve geometry and is causing a self intersecting polygon (not good). Instead, I would just use the straight line segment mode and place vertices along the curves to approximate them. Then run through the rest of the steps and you should get the desired results.
  13. Michael, If it looks like a bug and acts like a bug, then use the link on the right and file the bug.
  14. Hi Chris, What you are looking for is the ability of wall components to wrap around/down the edge of the slab. This was introduced in Vectorworks Architect 2011.
  15. Barry, You're not doing anything wrong, just a bit unfinished. The error message indicates that you have one more mandatory field to populate before it takes. In the "Properties for the selected Data Set:" list browser, scroll down to the bottom of the list (or expand the overall dialog), to display the "PredefinedType" at the bottom. Select the Property and see the "Enum Value for selected Property:" change to a pull-down menu control. Then select "WASHHANDBASIN". You should be good to go after that. But, your report does make a good case for seeing if we can automate this behavior when a user selects a specific Pset for SanitaryTerminalType. I'll get our engineers to look into it.
  16. I filed a bug. I had hoped it would make SP3, but we'll all have to wait a little while longer. ;-)
  17. Jim, If the Column is embedded in the Wall and you want to surround it, use the Pilaster tool. It is just like the Column tool, but meant for just this situation.
  18. Jim, Double-check the class settings for the VP.
  19. Jim, When I open your file, all the slabs are listed as "Unstyled". I'm not sure what the intent originally was, or how it happened, but when I "replace..." them with a style, they render correctly....almost. For each Slab style, select the "Insertion Options" and make sure that the "Textures" pane has the option set to "Use Component Textures". Then, when I look at the model in 3D/OpenGL, I see the textures that you applied to the Slab Style components. When I cut a Section Viewport through the model, everything now looks OK to me.
  20. Jim, Can you send me the file? I don't seem to be having the same problems.
  21. I found these will looking for some travertine and alabaster textures: http://www.precisionrefinishing.com/Stone-Look_Refacing.html http://cnzshuayi.en.made-in-china.com/product-list-1.html
  22. (deleted by administrator) Secondly, the product is called Vectorworks Architect, not Vectorworks Structural Engineering. Our goal is to focus on the architects' needs for design and working with other disciplines to complete a building design. It is just one BIM tool in a process that really does require multiple BIM tools, each one focused on providing the best solution for each domain (mechnical, electrical, plumbing, structural, energy analysis, etc.). For the best, most extensive Structural Engineering modeling, design, and analysis tools, I suggest you look at and use our sister company product Nemetschek Scia Engineer. We have shown with the DC Riverside Office Building project that Vectorworks Architect and Scia Engineer can work together (via IFC) to give architect and structural engineer to tools to collaborate while pursuing their own responsibilities. In response to the thread, there are some objects that do cross disciplines and may be useful to both architects and structural engineers, even in different platforms. I think that taking an initiative and defining what those objects are and how they should work for architect vs. structural engineers is a good thing for users to respond to, with honesty and in good faith/spirit.
  23. Will, So much of both DWG and IFC export AND import have changed since 2008, that these are pretty much non-issues. The DWG export from Sheet Layers has evolved into something way better and IFC capability, both export and import, are completely new animals. Gotta upgrade.....
  24. You're all missing an important function in the door PIO, "Use Symbol Geometry". Create a hybrid symbol of the door that you want (not using the Door PIO). Then, when placing a door using the Door PIO, select "Use Symbol Geometry" and select the desired door symbol. Set the "Configuration" to the desired type. Using this method you have the advantage of leveraging the repetition control of a symbol AND the power of the PIO's data structure and object interaction (walls).
×
×
  • Create New...