Jeffrey W Ouellette

Chris, I must somewhat agree with your rantings, in regard to energy modeling and analysis (EMA). I think that most architects DON'T understand how complex it really is and how much they need to know in order to get good info in and understand the results that come out of the software applications available today. MOST applications for EMA are really geared toward experts in the field (read engineers), not designers (architects), no matter the marketing spin the vendors put on the products (I will say that ThermoRender is a little different and more designer friendly...but, then again, I'm biased ;-)). The other problem I have seen, quite frequently, that even among our competitors' products (Revit), the end users struggle very much with using "integrated" tools like Ecotect. Why? Besides the complexity of the input data needed, the models that users try to analyze are often too complex and detailed and the geometry is very difficult for the software to resolve in order to do the required analysis. In reality most of these tools are most effective with simple geometry that has a lot of data attached to it. They don't really care about the geometric thickness of a wall being modeled, they just need the u/R/K values, and other factors, on a simple boundary plane, for that construction. This means that a very simple model, even to the point of just being Space objects, is the most effective analysis model source. I think that the architecture market has been ill-served, to this point, by many vendors making claims about EMA for designers that don't hold up. The tools and workflows haven't been developed yet to make it easy, or make sense, for the architect to use, beyond solar shading, shadow, and daylighting studies. For EMA, what designers (not engineers) really need is a tool that gives them a comparative workflow between a data baseline (code or minimum standard) and multiple design options (including simple data factor and/or formal iterations). And this tool should be able to suck in relatively simple model geometry from any source, using IFC, NOT gbXML. This workflow allows the designer to make high-quality decisions EARLY in the process when they matter, between meeting standards, or comparing the trade-offs of pursuing one design option or another. For the most part designers should be relying on really basic rules of thumb and early consultation with exports to gets the best pathway to good results anyways, not relying on analyzing a far too dedicated design and model. I think ThermoRender is a step in the right direction for our users, but we need more eyes on it to make that judgment. The tools that engineers need to use should be left to the engineers and be used for more detailed analysis and system design and code verification.

Wait a minute. Sheet layers are just what they indicate... (paper) sheet layers. They don't have any 3D dimension or orientation as they are meant to be analogous to printed paper sheets. Holographic printing would require some other analogy in the model vs. presentation modes or would print from the model directly, not a paper-based presentation. Viewports located on the sheet layers can have 3D objects/views. If the VP on the sheet layer is set to "Top/Plan" (2D plan view), but looks like it is "Top" (a 3D orthographic projection) then I would say this is a bug. File it.

I'll have to contact our Japanese partners and look into it.

Yoginathaswami, Yes, looks like a bug/regression. Please file as soon as you can. Thanks for the close look.

Chris, For structural engineering, I'd encourage anyone to look at Nemetschek Scia Engineering . We've been working with them a lot lately to establish workflows between Vectorworks Architect and Scia Engineer. This is described in the latest BIM in Practice project, D.C. Riverside Office Building . You could also contact Mark Flamer, an engineer, a Vectorworks and Scia user, and Community Board member, active on the Vectorscript/SDK forum, about this workflow. He may even surprise you with a few tricks up his sleeve that he is working on. This is primarily an IFC-based workflow. We are also pursuing other interoperability avenues with other vendors via IFC. Expect to see more information over the course of the net few months. These tools are "best-in-class" for the industries that they serve. Rather than trying to be everything for everybody, as Christiaan likes to point out so often, we will focus Vectorworks Architect being an architect's/designer's tool and let the technology of other applications dovetail, when necessary, through integrated workflows via IFC.

Have you tried setting the exterior and interior components and adjusting the handles for the wall components?

Guy, I wouldn't jump to such wild conclusions or speculation.

Fran?ois, In 2010 and culminating in 2011, working in a 3D orthographic view is quite the norm. Granted it is NOT a perspective projection, but I would argue that the perspective projection is most useful at presentation time rather than during the "model building" process. I'm not sure what version was the last one you used, but it would be worth checking 2011 out.

Chris, According to the Apple.com specs you should be able to watch .mov files on your iPad. It is the QuickTime file format, after all.... Just download them and add them to your iTunes.

Excuse me, Daniel, but did you ever think it may be an Adobe Acrobat display issue? Lines that are diagonal appear to be rendering incorrectly at full Zoom. But if I look at the SAME pdf in Apple's Preview app, the PDF line weights look perfectly fine. This is NOT a Vectorworks problem.

Submit a bug using the "Bug Submit" link to the right under "VW Community Links". You will be asked for the file to submit and an engineer can see what the problem is.

Nope. This is strictly an Autodesk-controlled initiative. It all happens from their end when opening a file. They have special encrypted flags on "native" DWG files. It shouldn't matter what DWG-compatible anyone is using as long as they are getting the information they need, and everything is there, in the style and format they desire. Unless, of course, they really want to get into an in-depth discussion of a government entity requiring a proprietary vendor-specific file format (especially when neutral open source standards ARE available) which smacks of restraint of trade, recognized on both federal and state legal circles. Just as the Texas Facilities Commission. As another option, you could pass the files through AutoCAD on your end and save them before handing them off....

Maybe he's looking for a tool that automatically cues "A Little Respect" or "Chains of Love" from iTunes when selected...;-o Sorry, I couldn't resist... ;-)

Are the windows custom geometry symbols or are they made using the Vectorworks Window PIO?

Larry, Send me the file offline and I'll see if I can use it for a new document on my end.

Ted, The Callout tool is in the Basic palette.

Larry, 1) Are you trying to read a database file from the local hard drive, or the network? 2) Is the database file in your User/Vectorworks folder or in the Applications/Vectorworks folder?

Peter, First, have you looked at the following thread on the Community Board, from a couple years ago? http://techboard.nemetschek.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=23837&Number=111911#Post111911 There is also: http://techboard.nemetschek.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=25987&Number=124765#Post124765 from last year. Both extend the knowledge of the power of Vectoworks database worksheets. Counting this ?other stuff? is dependent on either modeling it directly, or establishing formulas that extrapolate the items from another known quantity (e.g. number of J-Bolts = length of wall/16?. This extrapolates the count of bolts at 16? O.C. spacing from the length of a given/specified wall type.). I don?t think PlanSwift is really an advantage considering all it really does is the same extrapolation based on measured quantities (walls, areas) on a drawing and then using formulas specific to sub components to extract quantities. ANY thing that can be drawn/modeled/labeled/named/tagged can be queried and displayed via the database worksheets. IF you have a good example, please post or e-mail it to me so I can help, or we could use the Modern Home Prototype project to create new worksheets based on what you want to count.

Set the Framing Member slope to 14.04 degrees (= 1/4"/foot = 3:12). If you are using plywood sheathing, use the Roof Face tool to create 3:12 slope faces, the desired sheathing thickness on top of the Framing Members.

I don't think they recorded it, but they are working on collecting all the presentation materials and putting together a proceedings booklet. I let you, and everyone else, know more when it has been finished and posted.

Mike, First, Solibri v5 and v6 are Viewer and Checker in one. The free version gives everyone "viewer" capability, but a paid license gives you access to the "checker" tools. Secondly, I must repeat my previous inquiry about the purpose of the model. The problem with your original idea/trial is that the data structure of the model doesn't support the practical data structure of the IFC spec, or implementation in VW export. So, Solibri won't let you really "check" anything of usefulness because the checker rules are written based on properly following IFC specs/best modeling practices. If you adjust to my previous recommendations, I think you need to figure out, first, what kind of data you are trying to get out of the model and the workflow, before adding any more detail.

Actually, there have been a lot of changes and improvements made to the DTM, and the tools to manipulate it, from Vectorworks 2008 through Vectorworks 2010 SP4. No better time than the present to upgrade and get up to speed before 2011.

Peter, The mathematics of the DTM programming, called a TIN (Triangulated irregular network) , don't like absolute vertical surfaces, because points along the top and bottom of the plane would have the same x,y value. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for the programming to distinguish which points are in the correct order of the triangulation mesh which connects them. Potentially, you would have points arbitrarily swapping order with each other if they shared the same x,y with a different z, thus screwing up the mesh, thus screwing up the slopes, thus screwing up the DTM. Because this is a self-contained "mini-database", the DTM is a plug-in object itself, which requires other plug-in objects in order to correctly interact and manipulate it, not just geometric Boolean operations. If you wanted to avoid all the procedures and tools as you have described, you could just model the site as a solid object or mesh and manipulate it manually, or with solids operations, to your heart's content.

Benson, What's the difference if it is the Vectorworks Viewer or the Solibri Model Viewer (or a DWF, or DWG viewer for that matter)? I agree we could do better to promote and distribute the Viewer .

Mike, I must admit that this is ambitious, but I think the use of the Vectorworks Viewer may be better suited to sharing this level of model and information with other parties. While IFC can do what you are trying to accomplish, there are some limits to the current implementation in Vectorworks Architect, and some logical issues to consider when trying to share this type of data. 1) Primarily, though not exclusively, the intent of the use of IFC in Vectorworks, is to exchange the information of one (1) particular Building, not several, on one (1) site. The hierarchy of the IFC specification focuses on this. (Project > Site > Building > Storey > Space) 2) While it is technically possible to have multiple Buildings in/on the same Site in IFC, Vectorworks Architect 2010 SP4 currently does NOT support this. I hope to solve this limitation, but it does require rethinking some pretty significant data structures within Vectorworks and would NOT be easy. 3) The use of Space objects to represent Buildings is interesting, but the automated IFC translation from VW limits this usefulness. The Space object is meant to be a sub-object of an overall Building, not a Building in and of itself. 4) A better idea would be to model each building on a separate layer, then export each building/layer from VW as a separate IFC file. Then, in Solibri Model Checker, you can combine all the IFC files into one site, will the correct spatial relationships to each other and the site. Then save this as an .smc file for distribution. 5) For a site model such as this, with multiple buildings, wouldn't it be better to use the Massing Model object for each building? That way each building can have multiple floors and the gross ares for each building can be calculated and scheduled. If necessary, you can even stack Massing Models to produce building with multiple functions/forms, or use the new 2010 profile group functionality to create custom building shapes in the roof group of the object. 6) Also, using VW and the Viewer, you can color code the buildings, provide 2D labels for top/plan views (currently NOT supported in an IFC export) and even have database worksheets for everyone to view.