Jump to content

Charlie_P

Member
  • Content Count

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Charlie_P

  • Rank
    Apprentice

Personal Information

  • Homepage
    www.padcouk.com
  • Location
    Essex UK
  1. Sorry for the delay, somewhat busy. As I recall : - create the thread form from a reference source; a line drawing like the form on the top left of the posted attachment. Compose if needed and convert to nurbs. - create the path using the helix spiral command; convert that to nurbs; duplicate and displace one thread pitch - loft surface in birail sweep mode using the two spirals as the rail & the tread form as the surface. That should get you there. I'll recreate it and post the file (lost the original) at some point...
  2. No doubt I'll be corrected on this but I seem to remember that 16 Tb is the maximum addressable memory under Leopard. In other words VW has cornered the market in theoretical available memory (even if it's not actually there). This sounds like a recurrence of the memory leak that happened occasionally under v12 - although 2009 is a very different animal. There have been a number of posts reporting the odd go-slow in 2009 so this would seem to link up to a memory management problem as you are describing. It'd be interesting to see if others who are having the problem have similar memory figures. inukcad got the data from Activity Monitor (in the utilities folder). Open Activity monitor main window, select Vectorworks and click inspect. My version of 2008 is running at 312 Mb shared memory at the moment.
  3. Morning Petri, Yes, it is arguable that multi user databases are trouble free, however I would say that there are principles that could be applied; whilst CAD is necessarily a non linear environment and data entry into a database extremely linear there are essential similarities. Multiple object selection and object verb syntax are not too awkward, this is after all what SQL databases are all about. Layers are indeed lists of objects, one layer has many objects (one to many) rather than the layer being an attribute of the object, which I would guess is how it's done under the present system. (sort of an artificial many - many which is a logical black hole) Excel has a database foundation and whilst in many ways it's an absolute horror there is a hint there about data manipulation in a non linear environment, especially with VBA and the limited object orientated programming that is allowed. Thinking about how to implement this is a good way to waste a morning if you find this sort of stuff as interesting as I do; unfortunately I can't see a way to do it without ditching 9/10ths of the app and starting again - that's the sort of statement that creates awkward silences at meetings. Charlie
  4. Seems like a database type issue. A VW drawing is essentially a long list of individual items which have information attached to them (position, rotation, layer, class etc. etc) and WGR is acting like an old flat file db cross linking on lookups. The same data can be manipulated as in a relational db using the same rules (access, ownership, commit etc. etc) that regulate relational database use and have done very well for some time. Specifically the data used in both systems (flat file & relational) is the same. The program manipulating it is different. In Petri's push-pull dilemma then Alice (who selected the object first) has control until she commits to a change and Bob (who would like to edit the same object) has to wait for that commit. This only applies to the base data (the objects); things constructed from them (viewports etc.) would necessarily be locked on individual modification - Alice can't work on the same viewport as Bob - but Alice could be editing a design layer that was relevant to Bob's viewport. The open file dilemma would barely occur - only selected uncommitted data is unselectable elsewhere; it would either be invisible if mid creation or the unmodified version would be visible but unchangeable until the "rogue user" had committed to their changes or discarded them. This can be dealt with on a time basis with manual update or other more rigorous methods. Database design has met & dealt with all of the difficulties that arise with a number of simultaneous users. The large file problem is a question of perception. The total data stored in a relational db will be less than in a flat file system due to less duplication but it can be perceived that a monolithic vulnerable file is generated compared to a large number of dispersed & therefore safer files. This is not the case as the relational file is best viewed as a container within which there are a number of individual tables of data which are individually no less secure than a dispersal system. VW should be relational. This is old tech, a known path. I've been doing database work on these principles since Infostar in the early 80's and it's amusing to see flat file structure still in use, much like coming across Filemaker 5 in the mid 90's when everyone else had been relational for many years; thankfully Filemaker is now somewhat more modern.
  5. Having used both undoubtedly Solidworks is an excellent program. It is however very good at what it does because it works in one area, mechanical CAD, and restricts the user to work in a particular way. Components have to be parametrised from the initial 2d sketch onwards, for instance - which is fine when you know in advance what the physical and area constraints will be; not usually the case though. Great when you know where you're going, less good when you're playing around finding the best way to get there. It also depends what you're drawing. VW has a pretty good stab at almost anything, Solidworks is purely mechanical. For instance VW will handle large amounts of OS Landplan data and follow the tangle of classes/layers on import perfectly well. Solidworks just can't do this. There are some direct comparisons where SW is not as good as VW. Duplicate array is easier and more powerful in VW than the SW equivalent, 2d drafting is SW is nowhere near as powerful; on the other hand VW lacks 3d dimensioning and the parametrics are almost laughable. It's horses for courses ultimately. VW is Jack-of-all-trades (and you could very well say master of none) whereas SW is mechanical CAD done very well within the way it works which personally I find too restrictive.
  6. Just tried to trip up 2008 with a similar operation and it worked every time. I have had problems in the past however. Probably a silly suggestion but have you accidentally left "snap to grid" on? This will result in the line not actually touching the arc, and then the whole arc will be deleted when trimmed.
  7. Draw your 24' pitch circle (remember you can click to set the centre of the circle then tab once and enter the radius, hit enter twice to create) Position your box on the pitch circle (personally I tend to snap to top centre) - incidentally you don't mention if your boxes are 3d. If they are all is best done in top/plan view. Select the box and goto Edit - Duplicate array Select circular array from the pull down menu. Number of duplicates will be 7 as you've got one already. Angle between duplicates can be entered as a formula; in this case type 360/8. Z offset leave as 0 unless you'd like a coil of duplicates, Circle Centre Point set for next mouse click. You don't need to resize so leave that bit unchecked. Select rotate duplicates and click Use Duplication Angle. Finally select Retain original object and click OK. You'll get a crosshair cursor now - snap to the circle centre and click and the duplicates are created. Delete the pitch circle. The pitch circle isn't necessary for the creation of the array, it's just there to make finding the centre easy. You could do the same thing by putting a locus on your box then moving it 12' or you could position the box 12' from a known grid position, such as 0,0 To do this - draw your box, select it and look at the OIP. If it's a box drawn with a number of lines then you'll have to group them together first. The OIP will give a X and Y position for the group which you can set to whatever is most convenient, then use the Duplicate Array bit with the centre set at the right grid position. Duplicate Array is possibly the most useful tool about and it's worth knowing what it can do. Many other CAD packages don't have things as comprehensive and as simple to use. Using this tool, the mirror tool and the split tool effectively means seriously quick drawing.
  8. On my system... /Applications/Vectorworks 2008/Plug-Ins As far as I can see there are two relevant files, namely PDFPage.vwobject 152 KB PDFUtilityLib.vwlibrary 68.1 MB There are also plugin folders in : /Library/application Support/Vectorworks/2008/Plug-Ins /Users/Username/Library/Application Support/Vectorworks/2008/Plug-Ins but nothing relevant within.
  9. After a bit of mucking around... Select a viewport or object or text in VW2008 Copy. This puts a true pdf on the clipboard. If you open Preview and select file - new from clipboard you will get a pdf file that is clean and crisp. Save that file and open in Acrobat, zooms in beautifully, certainly in AR8 But paste or import into Word and all is lost. Back to square one. Paste it into Pages, however and all is sweetness and light. Exporting a PICT image from VW2008 seems to work better into Word but not as good as copy and paste to Pages. Exporting immaculate Pages file to Word gives the same results as directly importing the image to Word (i.e. bad) Exporting a pdf from Pages gives a crisp and clear result. So it seems that it's to do with the VW/OS setup defaulting to pdf for clipboard export and Word not handling pdf as well as the previous format - PICT. You can export a PICT and drag - n - drop into Word but it's a picture PICT not a vector so it's only as good as it's file size. Not sure if that's any help at all, but there you are...
  10. Not having used Revit I'm not qualified to make a comparison. I have used Autocad, Solidworks, Turbocad, Pro-E, various renderers and of course Photoshop etc. What makes VW attractive is the breadth of it's abilities; it's certainly flawed in that some tools do not work as well as they should and it's still, even in v2008, not quick once you get onto anything half complex. But. It does cover a lot of ground. Other individual programs do specialised work better but can't do as many things. Some things from other posts As Christiaan notes, these are now very old hat in terms of functionality, stability and speed. Version 12 I found particularly irritating but 2008 is a significant step forward. I suppose since I've been using versions of VW for years it would be difficult to say that a new user would find it unintuitive but I would suggest that we all find aspects of the software that are new and in my case they seem to consistently work pretty much the way I would expect. Complex? Yes, but that adjustability is one of the things that makes it flexible. Illogical? Not in my experience. Yes, this would drive me nuts too. Dosen't happen to me though... Yes, that's beginning to be true. I don't think they've been significantly rewritten since V10 and that was a long time ago. Hmm. Once I place a door using the door tool, subsequent doors follow the pattern I chose for the first one until I change the one one I'm placing and then subsequent ones follow that. Obviously didn't happen for you. Tool "stickiness" certainly needs to be improved but in this case, on my system, it does work. A rethink & rebuild bottom-up would improve matters greatly, no question. As to the rest, most of that is in these forums, a good guide to the canyons can be found with Jonathan Pickup's manuals. Whenever I have been to another bit of software it is nice to be back in VW . It's no where near perfect but in my experience it's the package I would buy again.
  11. Ion is right - Vectorworks menu - Preferences - Display tab Uncheck "Show parametric constraints"
  12. These show that the dimension is "associated" to the object. If you change the object the dimension changes as well; the squares don't print, they're like stationary smartcursor cues. To turn them off... Goto File menu - Document Preferences - Dimensions tag Deselect "Associate Dimensions" HTH Charlie
  13. To create a spring / spiral hydroslide... Draw a vertical line the height you would like your spring to be. Go to - Model-3d power pack-create helix/spiral Set the intended pitch etc. A spiral is formed.. Draw a circle representing the cross section of the spring wire (or hydroslide tube) Select both the circle and the spiral Go to - Model-Extrude along path Use the spiral as the path Hope that is what you were after
  14. Excellent maarten, thanks for posting that. Your English is perfectly OK and considerably better than my Dutch.
  15. Does the same thing happen when exported as a text .dxf or a binary? As to scaling, generally speaking it's best to set up the parts to be exported in a new file with the layer scale at 1:1 and the units on the same as whatever you're exporting to. If Composer is happy in cm set VW to cm before exporting. Use an old version of .dxf - version 12 for instance, as there's less chance of misinterpretation. If V12 is too old then work up through the versions to find the oldest that will do the job.

 

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...