Jump to content

Benny

Member
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Benny

  • Rank
    Greenhorn
  1. well since it was a sweep, I'll bet it was already a generic solid or at least maybe that's how VW sees it, so I just converted directly to nurbs.
  2. I had no idea that the history would make so much difference in file size! I purged the drawing and it brought the size down to 104KB, much better! Thanks for the tip DW. I also wanted to see what converting to a generic solid would do, it wouldn't let me do that, so instead I converted it to a nurbs object, which made the file even smaller, 69KB. So it looks like I need to consider a nurbs conversion as an option for solids once they're drawn. Thanks everyone.
  3. I built them into the 2d profile, since the chamfers are not all equilateral, and as far as I can tell, you can't chamfer a 3d object in that manner. I will admit, there are several chamfers and radii (that aren't apparent in my jpg) on the 2d profile, I made the profile to exact spec, which might be a bit overkill for my specific application. When I made the 2nd version, I simplified it quite a bit, which makes sense that the file size is down around 200K now. But, going forward, I guess I'm a bit puzzled/disappointed that one can't use VW to draw things of high detail without the fear of monstrous file sizes.
  4. That's interesting, since that's virtually the same method I created my first version, only I used lines, then converted to 3d polys once the shape was complete, then sweep. I suppose the number of fillets and chamfer details may have pushed my first version over the top. Oh, one more question. Is it possible to chamfer 3d objects, but having different x/y values for the chamfer (read: not 45 deg)? I didn't see it as an option in the dialogue, but maybe there's an override? I suppose I could always draw a 3dpoly of my chamfer profile then sweep/extrude it, then subtract it from my base object, but that's more work than it should be to achieve what I want IMHO.
  5. Update: I re-created the collar by extruding nurbs circles into cylinders, then joined them. This brought the file size down to 234K (a nice improvement). Still larger than acad, but not bad at all. However, I did have to eliminate a little more detail, but overall a very serviceable solution. If I make it a pio, I should be in pretty good shape. Thx all.
  6. Hi Nicholas, I double checked my vw prefs, and the 3d was set to med, but I changed my 2d to med. now as well. I'm curious as to the method you used to create the similar object. I'm considering the possibility that the method I used could be the culprit. I can rework the current collar and make it more simplistic, which wouldn't be bad in itself, but I like the objects to look like they're supposed to. (the technical side in me I guess). I'll have a go at it with a simplified model and see where that leaves my file size. I will also make it a symbol (which I have to do anyway, since it's a part we sell) which I realize will help the overall construction file sizes. Thanks for the tips. Benny
  7. Well, there are no textures other than VW's standard pre-loaded textures (hatches, etc.). No images though, the example drawing was just the collar created from scratch in the default blank template. I'll certainly look at my 2d/3d res settings and confirm the setting and let you know how that effects it. Thanks.
  8. I should preface my question with some background, I'm a long time Autocad user (since R11), and I am picking up vectorworks on my own along with help from our clients that typically use it as well. I feel pretty confident in my ability to draw any object I desire, as well as assigning it classes, layers, record formats, etc. We purchased vectorworks so that we could provide 3d model layouts of our products to our customers. However, I'm finding that if I draw our product library with the same geometric shapes and the level of detail that we have in our Autocad library, the file sizes are becoming unreasonably high. For instance, we have a connection "flange" that we use in one of our standard truss products. This flange is fairly heavy in geometry, and in acad, it is 73 kb, whereas in vectorworks it is 1.1MB! We use anywhere from 6 to 8 of these flanges in every piece of truss, and sometimes there may be 50-100 pieces of truss in a display. This is not acceptable in my mind. See my example drawing. I used a very similar technique in both programs to create this piece, since it is really the best way to represent it (read: revolve). See my example of the construction in VW. Should I use another method? Is not solid geometry modeling a better way to go than surfaces? In my opinion, any 3d modeling program worth it's salt should be able to use complex and detailed shapes/models without "breaking the bank" in file size. I'm just not seeing that in vectorworks to this point. There are other instances of exorbitant file sizes that I'm running into, with even less complex shapes, but this is just the latest and most extreme example. So what is the next step? Am I going to have to "dumb down" my drawings so that my clients and I aren't trying to share 50+ MB files that would be 10MB if done in acad? Is this just the way vectorworks is? (I'm just a little frustrated if you couldn't tell)
  9. Thanks again Christiaan, I'll give that method of class management a try. It does sound like it will be a quicker way of accessing the properties. I may try to email Julian about my worksheet question, as he's most likely to have an answer for me. Have a good weekend!
  10. Thanks for the input Christiaan, it sounds like you understand what I tried to convey, and unfortunately, it also sounds like what I am trying to fix or do is just not possible. Usually when I create a viewport, I'm in my design layer, since it allows me to choose which view I want to project (especially handy for perspective views). The trouble is, our business dictates that our truss structure designs get revised often per customer request. This means I have to often add new parts that weren't in the original setup when I created my viewports, therefore, the new parts do not show in the viewport until I manually change the properties of each of the viewports to set them from invisible to visible. It's just kind of frustrating. So, I guess that answers that particular question, but any ideas on my spreadsheet? Short of creating another "database only" spreadsheet and referencing cells so that my "parts list" that gets placed on the drawing is purely a spreadsheet, might anyone have suggestions? Is there a formula that will allow the counting of rows and numbering them in sequence?
  11. I'll try to explain what I've run into in a different way. I may not have communicated my issue clearly (my fault). I work on the design layer, and as I bring in my symbols, which are on symbol specific classes, the classes are added to the drawing and all are set to visible in the design layer. Then, I switch to an assembly sheet layer, which has viewports that are existing. The parts already assembled on my design layer will show, but, if I add any new parts, the viewport defaults these added part classes to invisible. Is there a global setting that would allow viewports to always set these new parts & classes to be visible? Bear in mind that I am a 15 year veteran of AutoCAD, and the methods used in vectorworks are vastly different, and sometimes highly frustrating as the drafting methods sometimes don't make sense to me. So I hope for some patience with my lines of questioning as I tend to fall back into "autocad speak" per say.
  12. Buehler? Buehler? Anyone? Am I asking the impossible?
  13. Two questions: 1.) Regarding symbol classes that are set to invisible by default when creating new viewports........why does it do this? I place several symbols into a drawing and assemble as needed, then if I create a viewport, all of those symbols' classes are invisible. Is there a default option that allows me to show all classes when creating a new viewport? 2.) I purchased Julian's WOD, which will serve most of the needs we had regarding scaling of the worksheet and having a more robust UI with the worksheet. However, I was under the impression from the description on ozcad website, that I would be able to individually edit the contents of each data cell, which is not the case. It is a frustrating weakness in the worksheet functionality that I am unable to edit individual cells, only what is in the column. What I am trying to achieve is....when I update my worksheet with the symbol part names, etc. I would like to be able to number each row as a part reference on an assembly diagram. See the image of what I am trying to do, maybe there's a function I can insert in my database header row, but I couldn't tell you what that would be, since the worksheet is "excel like", but doesn't have all of the functionality of excel (I know, a lot to expect, but one can dream). Any thoughts?
  14. Update.... I did segregate groups of objects into separate drawings, saved, then recompiled them into another file. It looks like that worked. Thx
  15. We're running ver 12.5.1, just updated. I haven't had a chance to try and segregate out different types of objects yet to see if there's an illegal object in there yet, I've been dealing with the other issue I posted in the tech area with my worksheet, but I'm going to try it today if I can. I'll keep everyone posted. Thanks.

 

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...