Dieter @ DWorks

And what would happen when you change the original design option to the others? What if you want to integrate different design options together? ... it will all be a mess. Just using different design layers is so much easier to control.

I also experienced this. You need to avoid typing in special chars in VS and trying to use the plugin strings, which does do it for me on special chars.

It will not be 100% exactly the same, but play with it and you will get something close. It also depends on the colors you use in your elevations.

You must check the option for it, then you can even use roof faces for the roof:

I haven't try this: but can't you use the edit path tool to avoid this?

You can have the same look if you create two viewports and just put a shape with an opacity between them. This will be faster and less hassle to work.

Clicking once will set that point. Click and hold will flyover.

- The massing model can have a poly as it's base, so it doesn't need to be a box. - You can use multiple massing models next to each other to have different Heights. - You can adjust the roof like you want, you can also create the roof yourself in the massing model. Try reading the help files first before complaining. And try all the options, because you can do what you want!

I find it simpler to have a sheet layer for each design option and just number and name it accordingly. Once you set up your viewports on the first option, you can copy the layer with it's viewports to get exactly the same where you then can just change the class/layer visibilities Using layers for design options is the most flexible and easiest to use as you don't have to turn on/off classes while working on the drawing.

Will this be a bim server or just a place to store ifc files which then can be used by the different apps?

??? Here in the Benelux (Belgium - Netherlands - Luxemburg), we only got our version two weeks ago, that's also 6 months later then the Original release and 5 months later than the official release date of 31 October. It makes you wonder why there isn't any quality control on these localisations or a better localisation method...

We can't create an underground parking space, or a metro line, ... in a dtm. I asked for this before, and I ask it now again because this is needed, not only for underground buildings, but for foundations that go a bit around the building where there will be ground above a part of them..... Currently I'm never able to use a section through a dtm because it always covers a part of the foundation.

That I know because I want this too because it is frustrating losing your cache. And the terrible part of this is that when you right-click and edit the annotations directly with it, you don't even get the dialog where you can set the cache, although I do not want to see that dialog then, but the standard settings should be the logical ones, where the viewport cache is kept. My post was a bit of-topic because it was about rendering time.

I think it's obvious....

Because you seem to do lightning design/theatre/..., you may not be able to do my tips at a full degree, but you can implement them a bit. Here is what I try to do: - Every object needs to be calculated, even if they aren't shown in the render, so set as many classes/layers off as possible. In this regard, try to create your library in such a way you can turn a lot of objects on that you will not see. So for example, objects in objects will not be seen in a normal render, but will be seen in section viewports, so put these objects in separate classes. - The objects that needs to be calculated will take longer if they are very complicated, even if they don't need to be. So you can do two things about this: ---- Some objects really don't need to be complicated because you always see them from a distant and take a small part of the render, so make the geometry simpler and get away as many curves as you can. ---- Some objects need to be their complicated form sometimes and other times their simple form. So make a symbol with two different version in different classes and use these classes to hide the one you don't need in that render. - Textures, keep them as low res as possible, with as less 'special effects' as needed. This you can not always do, but try to do it when you can. Reflection/mirror and glass textures tend to up the render time a lot from my experience. - Lightning and render settings. This I really can't tell direct tips, I just can say that you better try out as much options as possible to find one that has enough quality, but renders fast enough for you. - I'm sure others can share other tips with us.... (always eager to learn to) Of course, all these tips will depend on what your result needs to be. Does it really needs to be (photo) realistic, or just show realism? Personally, at the design stages of a project, I think that realistic as in photo and real are really not needed. Sure clients need to feel how it will be, and thus there needs to be realism, but renders can show that they are not in the real world, because they aren't, as long as the clients can see how it will become. Renders at the end of the project for selling purposes can be photo realistic, but for me not necessary, then you can change the textures etc.... but then you normally don't need to re-render a lot, so the time doesn't matter that much like it matters at the beginning of the project.

(..) Its the other way around Mate <-> Its VWs BIM AEC Model that is dysfunctional HTH can you expand on this, please? rob I only use VW for all things I need to do in a projects' lifetime, and for many other things. VW can do so much other stuff than just a bim model, which is the only thing Revit does.

It's the viewport cache option when you edit your viewport for the annotations, it's not the same as the save viewport cache option in the document preferences.

Christiaan, I do agree with you, but I also would suggest do to like I did: Setup your library in such a way that your renders are done in less then 2 minutes while still looking good enough. It's a search in the beginning, but a real pay-off in the end. I always render in less then 2 minutes, even interior renders on my 5 year old machine.

VS can read and write xml files, so I suspect it must by your folder permissions. xml files are easy to edit manually and you can change/add to the structure of the document, but are slower than normal text files. Normal text files are less easy to edit manually, but are faster and easier to work with in VS.

Those what's new items are all improvements. Materials were already there and they haven't changed, only the dialog for editing them changed, so if you compare the two versions, at first glance, it's not a really big update. But I do agree with you Vincent that Revit has a lot that VW really need to have. The thing is that Revit is a package that fits together, VW is a heap of plugins.

That I do not agree on. I checked their what's new list and there aren't that much exiting features on it that users really need. But on this one I do agree. I really think they should hire more people and step it up. Blow VW apart and put it back together as a puzzle, not a pile of plugins like it now is. There are too many features every release to have new ones and that never get developed further, so what's the point of them? Think about the wall sculpting object etc....

I got frustrated and angry about the way Robert creates his simplified object from the real one: It just had to look like it was correct! Why not create it correct in the first place? This is the reason I 'hate' many draftsmen/architects, because it just have to look correct, but they don't give a s* about it being correct. And in this case it will be used by so many people...... Oh, what about the real builders slapping on all bricks so it looks correct instead of being correct?

Why not one story for the slab and have both top of slab and bottom of slab levels in that?

I suspect it's just a tool? Maybe one of the old machine design ones? But I never heard of it.

true, but you forget that design layers bound to a story, but not bound to a level type also moves accordingly, so you can define stories and design layers and no level types if you don't use them. (I personally recommend using them though.) What do you mean by stand alone levels? You can't have a level without a design layer. It's the design layer that can act as a level type. If you mean a design layer that is not bound to a story, then it's not a level, it's just a design layer which has a z-height.