willofmaine

With annoying frequency VW is crashing when I delete things. Has anyone experienced this? Is there a solution? Thanks.

Is there any way to get window labels to show up in elevation as well as plan? We usually identify the windows on the building elevations, if not the plans. Both would be best. Thanks!

Maybe the limiting rectangle (sent to the back) that I have been using addresses that issue? With it, I can zoom in very closely and still get the polygon (which has its fill).

Beautiful! Thank you! Key was your mentioning the Object Info palette; I'd been trying to control field names of the Settings>Data tab rather than the OIP using the VectorScript Plug-In Editor. I then discoved (which Petri confirms above) that dragging parameters up or down in the '#' column controls where they appear on the OIP, so, rather than delete those that I don't want (there are so many of them) I can simply put those that I do want at the top of the list where they're very readily accessible. Thanks again! -Will

Thanks for confirming this! Wish it hadn't taken me so long to figure out; maybe it's in Help and/or the manual and I just missed it...

Thanks Islandmon. By changing the angle of rotation of the profile (if that's what you're suggestion) I've been able to 'minimize' the twist in that instead of the start being flat and the end very twisted, both start and end were twisted half as much. I think next time maybe I will try using combinations of sweeps and straight, sloped extrudes...; though in all cases a single path that could be manipulated would be best...

The first four Line Types include "Proposed" and "Existing," Major and Minor. I wish there was a third pair for "Existing to be Abandoned." Our site plans typically include existing contours to remain as thin lines; existing contours to be abandoned as thin dashed lines; and new contours as thick lines. This makes it easy to see what is new. But I guess VectorWorks will not allow a distinction between new contours, and existing contours that are to remain as is.

Windows that are mulled together I have treated as separate window types. Even though larger mulled windows might be field assembled, conceptually, it seems reasonable to treat multiple windows mulled together as single units. Particularly since manufacturers often provide the mullion details. Regarding different wall thickness, yes, that complicates things. The exterior walls for my current project are all the same. If they weren't, I think I'd be inclined to have different symbols for different wall thicknesses for each window type... ...I think. But, obviously, things rapidly become more cumbersome as window types and/or different wall thicknesses are introduced. So... In all cases, particularly for doors, I agree that there's plenty of room for NNA to make improvements.

"Bloatware" - funny. When I creat a VA door schedule, I end up deleting the vast majority of the columns. I'm thinking it may be easier to create one from scratch. Thus it would also be nice to reduce the data that can be entered for the doors and windows themselves. I tried using the VS Plug-In Editor. But re-arranging items in the "Paremeters" list seemed to have no affect to the PIO. I tried adding numbers to the Alternate Names (such as '01-Location') so that in the PIO I could at least rearrange the Field Names by clicking on the column headers. But the info I entered for "01-Location" remained linked with "Manufacturer." Changing the Parameter Name to "Sill" got me a nice VS error that disabled the software (I had to restart VW twice to get beyond that!). I looked at "Strings," but there didn't seem anything potentially helpful there. So, basically, I guess I'm missing that in the VS Plug-In Editor which controls where things appear in the PIO's. Thanks in advance for any further thoughts!

In the Data tab for doors and for windows, there are lots of "Field Name" choices, such as 'Manufacturer,' 'Model,' and 'Accessories' for doors. Is there any way to delete, or at least move down on the list, those that are extraneous? It would be nice not to have to wade through so many things when setting the information for a simple schedule. Thanks!

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one wrestling with this issue! But, I am using symbols pretty successfully for windows. My current project has 180 windows, and only 11 window types ("Type A," "Type B," etc.). So, I only have 11 symbols to deal with, which is great, especially when it comes to editing them, and there's no need to search for all instances of a particular type to use the eye-dropper tool. Also, I'm pretty sure 180 PIO's would take a lot more file memory than 180 instances of 11 symbols. In response to toobiloo's original question, windows that are symbols can be easily reported on the Window Schedule, as follows: 1.) In the database row header, right-click and select "Set Criteria." 2.) Change the three pull-down windows to read "Type - Is - Window." 3.) Check the "Including components of Symbols" box (this will find the window PIO's within the symbols). 4.) Back in the schedule worksheet, with the database row header selected, drag the "Sum" icon into the "Mark" column. This will consolidate each of the different window types (so that, in my case for example, instead of a schedule with 180 rows, one for each window, there are only 11 rows, one for each window type. Hope that helps! -Will

Zooming in may be the solution... I'm trying to create an elevation profile line, in a viewport. Because my building has a complex profile (roof edges with cornice mouldings and even Ionic capitals) I've been using a rectangle (sent to the back) to limit how much of a polygon is created at any one time. I have now found that if I 1) zoom in more for more complex details and 2) zoom so that my limiting rectangle fills the screen, I am able to create the polygons. So, this should work well, particularly since it is easy to create polygons for the long straight runs, even by clicking if necessary, and because it's so easy to ultimately combine all of the many polygons into a single one.

Me too. After wasting some amount of time, I finally shrugged and said - well, what one might say - and have since accepted that it's necessary to always go to the render tab and manually set the texture. Is it just me, or is VW kinda buggy?

Does the "Polygon From Inner Boundary Mode" (Polygon>Paint Bucket) tool not really work in big files?... (I got it to do one complex polygon, then a second after re-starting my computer, but that seems to be all it will do...). (50+ Mb file).

Thanks for the responses. I didn't have much luck with using the Extract Curve tool; in any case, the cap is wider than the wall, so I'm not sure it would help even if I could get it to work. How does one 'constrain the bezier dihedral to Z values'?........

Nope, didn't do any of those things. I've experimented more with the building section viewport, and with some design layers it will regenerate properly, and with others (slab layers?) it re-appears elsewhere on the screen. Meanwhile, I re-created my detail viewport, and everything was fine... until I turned off the design layers and turned them back on again. Upon Udating, no sign of them...

I copied a building section viewport and cropped it to create an eave detail. After developing the detail in 'Viewport Annotation' I turned off the design layers for the viewport. Later, upon turning them back on and updating the viewport, nothing in the design layers showed up. As an experiment I tried turning the design layers in the original building section viewport off and on again, and, oddly enough, upon updating the viewport the entire building section regenerated in an entirely new location on the screen! Any thoughts, anyone?? Thanks!

Thanks Katie; never would have found that command! But, in this case, it didn't seem to do anything...

Thanks Katie, that did the trick. Upon further consideration, maybe it's intended that patterns be used for grayscales, which otherwise can't be done when printing in Black & White? And that hatches be used for patterns?...

All of my pattern fills print as gray-scales, rather than as patterns. Any thoughts, anyone? Thanks.

What's the best way to create a concrete cap for a stone wall that's both curved and the top of which slopes up and down? After finally getting an extrude-along-path (based on a 3d polygon) to work, the profile twists seemingly uncontrollably from start to finish. Thanks!

Kevin: under the Text menu there is a command "TrueType to Polyline" which you can use to convert your text to polylines, which can then have fill patterns. Of course they are no longer editable text... Robert: There appear to be two choices in the Graphic Properties dialogue box for contour LineStyles: Existing and Proposed. "Proposed" seems to include both contours that have been changed by site modifiers, as well as existing contours that are not changed by site modifiers. "Existing" seems to only include those existing contours that have been abandoned and replaced with new contours due to site modifiers. How does one differentiate between existing, unmodified contours and brand new contours? It seems there should be three representations: existing contours to remain; new contours; and existing contours to be abandoned. Thanks, Will

In using a DTM to create a site plan, is it possible to differentiate between new contours and existing contours that are to remain (such as with different line weights)? It seems the DTM lumps both new contours and unchanged contours together as "Proposed"... Thanks!

I'd like to use symbols for the doors, as there are many of each type. However, if "Use Symbol Geometry" is selected, there seems to be no relationship between the door symbol's actual size and the size listed in the Data tab. So if the original door symbol is changed (size wise, for example) does this mean it is necessary to go through every single door instance and update the sizes in the data tab (or, not much better, eye-dropper every single door instance)? Thanks!

Er, maybe Nemetschek is that "someone with the programming Knowledge" to accomplish this? Given everything that the software is capable of, it's hard to imagine that this would be terribly difficult to accomplish. And with the impressive array of functions they've actually thought of and included, this inability is really a bit of a surprise. Maybe with the next round...