wezelboy

Tell you what mclaugh: why don't you do the same with Windows?

I don't think it will ever catch up with OSX either, for a lot of reasons. OSX is pretty slick.

No. But there are people who do that sort of thing and spend lots of money on Linux apps. For a workstation, I would love to run OSX on a microATX form factor instead of the gargantuan G5/MacPro form factor that takes up half my desk. But Apple doesn't offer any standalone box between the mini and the pro. It's not that simple. The moral compass is based on Kant's Categorical Imparative, with a light sprinkling of the Sherman Act.

Linux (especially a newer distribution) is not that hard to install or configure. It might require some very basic computing/networking knowledge at the most. If you can't wrap your head around clicking the "obtain IP address automatically" radio button, then you probably should not be using a computer.

Roof face works pretty good for some of this. I also sometimes create extrudes to define the edges of the driveway and then use the 3D Polygon tool to create the actual driveway.

As someone who used to be in charge of an annual IT budget between $500K and $1.5M, I can definitely say that there is money to be made in the Linux application space. I've spent lots of money on linux apps and support for those apps. Most serious Linux users are not "cigar chomping revolutionaries" but rather people who understand a couple key truths: 1- Windows always has been, and probably always will be, an incredibly crappy operating system. 2- Apple always has been, and probably always will be, limited by their hardware selection. While Apple does have some very nice hardware, you can't get a 1/2 depth 1RU box and slap 70 of them in a rack, or get the latest whiz bang graphics card. Linux occupies the middle ground between these two. It is a decent operating system. Not as nice as OSX, but it will work with just about any hardware. The main thing against Linux is the relative dearth of applications. I don't expect NNA to port VW to Linux. But if they did, it might give some Windows users a reason to switch to Linux. And as for the evils of Microsoft or Apple versus hardware manufacturers... Here is a handy dandy moral compass for you to go by: Microsoft- Evilest of them all. Bill Gates may very well be the anti-christ. His foundation is just a ruse. Apple- Not so evil. Sometimes Jobs is brilliant. Sometimes he is an idiot. Intel- Evil. But at least they make decent processors. AMD- Not evil. Possibly good even. Sony- Not so evil. LG- Not so evil. Sun- Not so evil. SGI- Who?

There are 2 ways to create PIOs. Either with VectorScript, or the Vectorworks SDK. VectorScript is probably better for getting your stuff up and running quickly, which is why I use it. I don't have the time to jump into the SDK, but think I would prefer it if I could have a week to geek out on it. The VectorScript docs are here: VectorScript Docs You use the plug-in editor to set things up like your plug-in type, parameters and help text. Then you write a script that does all the heavy lifting/drawing. You can then bring the PIO into your tool palette with the workspace editor and try it out.

You can create your own custom doors. Add your 3d symbol to VectorWorks/Libraries/Defaults/Door - Custom Leaves/Custom Leaves.mcd The door plug-in will scale this symbol to fit the door size you have specified, so if you want it just right, make sure your plug-in dimensions are the same as your symbol dimensions.

Maybe make a path object plugin. You would have to get your hands dirty with Vectorscript, but I think that what you want is doable. -P

I'll have to redo it. I'll try to have it for you today.

Hierachical viewing (and manipulation) of objects!

Yep, I have the class set to use class attributes and the class is visible in the section viewport.

Here is a simple example: My wall classes have thick lines. My Section Style class has even thicker lines. My Section-Beyond class has a thin line. The viewport is supposed to use the Section-Beyond class for objects beyond the cut. (See viewportdialog.tif) If you look at Badviewport.tif, you can see thicker line weights corresponding to the wall classes around the door and in the jamb of the door that the section is cutting through, even though they should be drawing at the thinner Section-Beyond line weight. In Goodviewport.tif the viewport has been converted to a group, the lines have been selected, and then assigned to the Section-Beyond class. This is how it should render. Interestingly, when you convert a section viewport to a group, the class assignment of the orignal object is retained in the rendered lines.

Maybe VW uses OpenGL differently than Autocad, but this problem would only occur if you are using OpenGL rendering.

There is a whole portion of the advanced preferences dialog box of section viewports dedicated to assigning objects beyond the section plane specific class attributes. Why put this in the dialog box if it doesn't work? The corresponding feature for objects cut by the section plane works just fine. This is a serious "limitation" BTW. Section viewports are nearly worthless as it stands. Edit: I should also point out that polygonal rendering does not appear to have this "limitation". Hidden line rendering has this "limitation".

Yes. And if Mac Help or anyone else tells you to sudo rm -rf /* DON'T DO IT.

It doesn't sound like a video card/driver problem because then Autocad would run lousy also.

I guess it isn't really a line weight bug per se, but rather the fact that assigning a class line style to objects beyond the section plane doesn't work. Fixing this bug would be awesome, but it would in no way diminish my desire for a hierarchical view. :-)

Don't get me started with scripting this stuff. The last thing we need is me ranting about the virtues of Perl. ;-)

I'm having to do a lot of masking in section viewports because of the line weight bug. This has been driving me to use groups more so I don't inadverently select a mask. I don't know. I've always used groups and symbols liberally. I usually find that any collection of lines that I might duplicate and resize is a good candidate for a group.

It seems like I have been using groups more and more to define the functional elements of my drawings. However, this sometimes can get a little confusing during editing (Which group am I in? What other groups are in this group? Is this group in front of that group? etc?) It would be nice to have a way to view and manipulate the object hierarchy- sorta like list views in the Finder with those cool expand/collapse triangles. The top level would be layers, and you could expand each one to reveal the objects on the layer. Things like groups, viewport annotations/crops, and 3D solids would also be expandable to reveal their component objects. You could use this hierarchical viewer to select objects or change their position in the hierarchy (pull an object out of a group, send forward or backward, etc.)

Maybe try reniceing your VW process, but I have not noticed huge speed gains from this. The way you would do this is pull up a terminal while VW is running and do the following command: ps -aex | grep VectorWorks You should see something like this: 435 ?? S 12:33.88 /Applications/VectorWorks 12.0.0/VectorWorks.app/Contents/MacOS/VectorWorks -psn_0_4849665 PATH=/usr/bin:/bi 504 p1 R+ 0:00.00 grep VectorWorks TERM_PROGRAM=Apple_Terminal TERM=xterm-color SHELL=/bin/bash TERM_PROGRAM_VERSION=133 USER= The first number (435) in this case is your VectorWorks process ID. You will need this number for the next command: sudo renice -19 435 It will ask you for a password. After you provide it, you are done. Note: you have to do this after you launch VW every time. There are ways to get around this requirement, but they are a little more involved.

I think ultimately the best way to deal with this issue (and a lot of other ones) is to open the PIO code. People capable of localizing/customizing can step up. Granted, it is possible to completely replace a PIO with a custom one, but but some of the PIOs are pretty complex. Replacing "Door" would be a lot of work. It may be opening a can of worms (mostly from a support standpoint), but ideally the Nemetschek developers would spend more time working on core engine issues rather than PIO issues. Just my 2 cents. I'm sure Petri would agree with me on this one. :-)

Exactly. That's why I was wondering. :-)

To create a symbolic link you will need to use the terminal. It can be found in /Applications/Utilities/ To link your local Prefs_Def to a server based one, you need to do the following: First you need to remove the local Prefs_Def (but make sure you have a backup somewhere) In the terminal type the following: ln -s a sample command would look like: ln -s /Applications/VectorWorks\ 12.0.0/Plug-Ins/VW_Arch/Data/Prefs_Def /Volumes/Server/Preferences/Prefs_Def Note: The forward slash after VectorWorks is important, as the directory name in this example has a space in it. This way the shell will parse the space as part of the name and not as an argument seperator. You might need to futz with the permissions of Prefs_Def on the server to get it to work correctly.