Assemblage

Will stick it on the Wish List..

Thanks Matt P this is useful. The masking tool in CameraMatch seems to work a bit like Photoshop's Background Eraser tool which is what we currently use. The traditional division between 'presentation' work and design development is fast collapsing. We/clients/others need to see ongoing design work 'insitu'. Given png supports alpha, why in VW is there not simply a check-box when exporting for "Render background as transparent"?? These pngs could then be dynamically linked to a layered Photoshop file which automatically updates. Scribing outlines each time a rendering is done is swimming against the tide in my opinion.

That's helpful thanks - I'll try those. There must also be a way with the transparency. I gather it involves using image masks and transparency shaders. But I'm struggling, and assume there are familiar steps to advanced users.

Is there anywhere to go to understand steps for using VW for compositing? We want to export a model view with a transparent background for dropping into a photo for example. There must be loads of people wanting to do this, but I can't find much help on it.

We've some windows in walls which are part of symbols, instanced on different storeys/layers. And some not, which are unique to those storeys. What's the best way to pull data from the objects to schedule the whole building?

You got me: I can't reproduce the difference in the hard copy (in this drawing..). But there are real differences in the pdfs. The VW export is 3 times heavier, and hatches and lines appear feint and slightly 'crumbling' on screen.

When I print a hard copy from pdfs made using the Adobe PDF "Printer" vs exporting to pdf withing VW I get different quality results. Basically, the line quality etc via the Adobe printer is better. But using export is essential for batch tasks. Shouldn't the two pdfs be identical?

Still doesn't update, at least I can't get it to. I made three files and placed some database callouts via keynotes as you outlined. I used the 'Note description from Database' option, so what appears in the drawing area is meaningful and not an abstract "34, 35, 36" or "F, G, H"..etc which I don't like about keynotes and anyway becomes unusable on larger multi-file/user projects. I amended one of the notes in the database and updated that instance in that sheet file. The same note in the other files does not reflect the amendment. (i) Hitting "update" in their keynote PIO doesn't do it, (ii) nor does running Reconcile Notes or (iii) even closing all files, quitting and restarting VW doesn't. Same old wrong note..

In case this helps with your sanitary fixtures (helped me). http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=144138#Post144138

Many thanks Kevin

We've section VPs generating bathroom elevations for working/construction drawings. In hidden-line, sanitaryware as a mesh object is a mass of lines..not really usable. We're after a simple outline. Experimenting using a hybrid symbol of a line plan combined with 3D poly elevations kind of works (at least it's not reverting to non-updating 2D draughting), but the computer act like they've been sent marching up a hill of pillows...v slow. How are people doing BIM sanitaryware for working drawings?

..and now, for some reason, it's not reconciling correctly any more. Have abandoned ship and swam back to making symbols of the callouts.

I have a hybrid symbol with all components drawn in a single class sitting in a master modelling file. This is referenced as a "whole of model" DLVP in another file, for taking views and generating SLVPs. The symbol (3D part is just a simple extrusion) is visible in wireframe and HL in the viewing file as normal, but with OpenGL and any other 'tone' render it completely disappears. All classes and layers appear to be correct. Other elements are viewing ok in the tone renders. I have no idea why

I've noticed this also. Constantly having to select section lines and return them to their class attribute settings.

Good to know - thanks.

Like a Hole Object in a hybrid symbol, wouldn't it be altogether better to be able to model a solid and then deduct it from a DTM to generate the proposed? Stake objects, pads, boundaries etc have their uses - granted - but wouldn't be useful and v easy to be able to have VERTICAL cuts and use the building model geometry massing itself to cut the DTM?

Sorry Yoginathaswami to jump in on a different angle: when I saw your post Dave I was hopeful for a simple way of rendering a model with a transparent background for dropping into a site photo. Exporting the vp with fill as None and as a png (which should support transparency) there is still a white background to the image. I also tried it the other way around: instead of composing in Photoshop, I imported the image into VW and placed the render on top. It worked, but there is a white anti-alias blurry edge to the model..so back to square one having to extract foreground material from a background by hand in Photoshop.

Does proposed vs existing in the DTM make it through?

Yes. I've been still pushing things around in orthogonal views..a 2D draughting hangover. This is much better. Donald, does it work if you use Move by Points?

Got it - thanks. I had looked at the file but hadn't seen you had a few layers in play with the dtm.

If I put proposed Stake Objects in the source data VW thinks it's existing (the plan of existing looks like the plan of proposed). If I put the Stakes not in source data but placed as modifiers I get a 'boundary' error (see attached screenshot and test file). I was hoping to place 'proposed' Stakes throughout a proposed site plan without having to add boundaries in every case.

digitalmechanics, In your method of using Stake Objects, how do you handle and display proposed vs existing site models? Do you make two DTMs?

Ok - thanks Gideon

Yes. Try clicking 'Overall Height' rather 'By Layer Elevations'. Suddenly..no upper floor plan of the stair. I don't understand why, but it seems intentional.

If 'Overall Height' is specified rather than using 'By Layer Elevations' a plan view is denied in the 'Upper/Lower Floors' tab. Why? Using the stair in a symbol instanced over a number of floors/layers means not using 'By Layer Elevations'...but then no stair will appears in plan on the top floor at all.