Jump to content

CipesDesign

Moderator
  • Content Count

    5,096
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

120 Spectacular

7 Followers

About CipesDesign

  • Rank
    Vectorworks Veteran

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Designer
  • Homepage
    www.peterlcipes.com
  • Hobbies
    Sailing, skiing, music & many more
  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Well in my experience you cannot un-stir it. See this recent thread. It's long and complex but well worth a read...
  2. There is only one reason I can think of. One (or all) the tool(s) were deemed inadequate so they decided to create an new one to deal with it. Turns out the new one is also inadequate. It's like if your were to throw a bunch of random herbs in a soup pot, hoping to make it taste better. And it doesn't. So you throw in some more.... etc.
  3. This may not be entirely relevant to the original question, but.... For my work (one-man shop, mostly custom residential one-offs) I always like to stick with a) what is the simplest way to get there, and b) how does the thing actually get built. So for a typical sloping garage slab I have always found that a Roof Face is by far the easiest and most effective tool in the toolkit. Set slope to 1/4" per foot and set the high point correctly as it relates to the adjacent floor and voila.
  4. In terms of Visibility (which I think is what you're after) there are two ways to do this in VW's: either By Class, or By (Design) Layer. It all comes down to how you organize (or perhaps re-organize) your file. For instance, there is no reason that all "Hoists" can't be in their on discreet Layer... In terms of Selection (which can also be very useful), try using Custom Selection. For example, I often find that a s project progresses I need to segregate out certain objects. So I use Custom Selection to select all Red Objects, or all of a certain Class (eg) and then I can place all those objects onto a new Layer, or move them all or change them all. There is nothing sacrosanct about Design Layers in terms of how one chooses to use them. You just need to be aware about their "Z" height and stacking order.
  5. John, in case you are not aware, check out the Workspace Editor. This is where you can find and add many many tools and commands. You can also create your own custom workspace (recommended!) and then add tools and commands to various places. You might be pleasantly surprised at what you find.
  6. John, I have the Designer package and there are indeed a lot of tree and plant symbols, 2d and 3d, included. I am not certain of what is included in Architect package. Perhaps they are hiding, or perhaps you will need to upgrade. I recommend that you contact your sales rep and ask.
  7. Is it possible that the Walls and Roof are on the same Design Layer? If so, try separating them and re-run the Fit To command. If not then maybe manual reshape is the expedient option.
  8. Warning: Rant ahead (apologies in advance) My 2¢: Many of the inconsistencies spoken of here have become baked in to how VW is developed and programmed. In a mad rush to crank out new tools and features a lot of seemingly small (but very important!) things are overlooked. My sense as a very long time user is that this really started to get bad around ten years ago. The software started out (as "MiniCad") as a brilliant and elegant piece of programming which was easily managed, once understood. It has become (as VW's) a somewhat haphazard patchwork of add-ons and sometimes entirely conflicting pieces of code that is nearly impossible for a new user (or even a veteran user) to grasp. At this point the only useful thing to is FILE BUG REPORTS. Be as specific as you can about the steps involved. Point out problems and issues but don't try to solve them (the engineers are generally not receptive to our solutions, unfortunately). As a result of this, and as I mentioned earlier, I have tried but abandoned many of the newer "features" and gone back to older ("legacy") tools and methods. Fortunately for me I am a one-man shop and I have no need for BIM* compatibility (one-off custom residential practice, mainly). * Note: obviously BIM has enormous potential in all areas of design, architecture and engineering. I am not dismissing the potential and I understand the power that can be gained by its universal use, especially in respect the entire life-cycle of a building or buildings. However, from what I have seen it's just not ready for prime time, at least for me... End of rant -
  9. Maybe because the Object is a Slab? (I don't use Slabs, I always use Roof or Roof Face. So not 100% certain.) One other method, but it'a PITA: Duplicate the Texture then mess around with the angle of orientation of the image. FWIW, I believe Slabs were introduced a few years back for BIM compatibility. Roofs and Roof Faces are older gen objects. But they still work fine in most situations.
  10. Select the Object (Slab, Roof, etc). Go to the Render Pane of the Object Info Palette. Scroll to the (in this case) Part = "Bottom" settings and change the angle as desired.
  11. Also, I believe the Object must have Fill=Solid in order to display a texture. FWIW, I use this method to properly show road intersections and other annoying portions of a site that VW's doesn't handle very well. Maybe, hopefully, someday...
  12. I think the answer is that while VW's can generate highly accurate shadows (given that the model data and heliodon settings are accurate), you will need to trace and color those shadows to produce a graphic which shows them all together on the same sheet (as you have done). There are other ways to do it (eg: exporting image files and re-importing at proper scale and locational registration ) but I think these will be more time consuming and provide less graphic control. From a purely graphic illustration point of view, I would suggest adding hard/heavier lines to the buildings and make sure to label them. Also, I might play with the opacity of the (traced) shadows which would allow the background to be seen a bit more clearly, and also label each or provide a color-coded legend off to the side. One other note (unsolicited 2¢), I am assuming that the area in question has existing buildings which would receive and/or block shadows from the proposed structure. For me this would be very important to try to get across because in many cases the new building's shadows might be less relevant when seen in proper context. It would require actually modeling the existing buildings, at least in some rudimentary form. Also, unless the area is flat or nearly flat, it would also be important to model the base topography as that very well might effect the true shadowing. General note: not too long ago all of these types of studies were done by hand using complicated algebra or geometry. It was painstaking, mind-numbing work and the results were only so-so. Even though we need to trace some objects, we are saving so much time and gaining so much accuracy in comparison that I think it's quite worthwhile.
  13. Have you tried to Compose the polylines first? And also make sure that the fillet distance is less than the closest sequential vertices?

 

7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114

 

© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

×
×
  • Create New...