Jump to content

Donald Wardlaw

Member
  • Posts

    346
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Donald Wardlaw

  1. If Layer Scale were to disappear, I'd stop upgrading VW. It does not bother me that someone else uses a different drawing organization. I prefer that, to there being only One Way. Most of what HEengineering said captures how I think about this. What gets lost sometimes in these discussions is the diversity of project types and office sizes that are represented. At the moment one of the virtues of VW is that it allows different work flows for different firms working on different project types. It even allows a firm to adjust their workflow if they like, for different projects. For some project situations BIM is completely unfunctional, and there is no prospect of that changing. Likewise for some projects non-hybrid project documentation is not functional and that is not likely to change also. I go back far enough with this software, 25 years now, to remember why a lot of us said no to autocad in the first place, and for that matter to say no to Windows (III I think) also. The advantage was that Minicad was WYSIWYG. Layer scale derived from that. What has happened in the last 25 years, with 1:1 scale, sheet layers and elaborate standardized class structures, is that this software has become more autocad like. I accept that as long as I am not pushed to work that way. I take in autocad drawings, often from firms with much more stature than mine, all the time. And what a mess they are. I would be uncomfortable if I thought the product I produce, using the software in the way I prefer, were leading to documents that did not compare with the best others can do using the software in the way they prefer. I am not uncomfortable. Long live layer scale.
  2. I've also noticed that it is a bit too easy to draw a line a bit off 0 or 90, even with the shift key down. So, +1 me too. I've also noticed another thing: If you trim an oval with a line, it converts the oval to a poly line made of arcs similar to but not exactly the same as the line of the oval. It is a tiny error, but it is what it is. d.
  3. Hmmm. Jim, thanks for proper answer. If I read between the lines, VW does use more resources than it used to, maybe multi-threads, multi-cores. That makes me wonder if I should try doing field work with one of the older versions, to see whether that gets valuable battery life improvements. If I'm using El Capitan, what is the oldest version I might use for basic 2d documentation? Thanks, Donald
  4. I am doing that too. The Chargetech is an external battery. The batteries in the linked article to not work, it appears, with the mag safe connectors on the MBP. The Chargetech device provides usb for phones and tablets and AC for a regular MBP charger. My question though, is really about what if anything can be done on the vector works side of the equation, whether there is room for improvement there.
  5. My work as an architect has me measuring existing buildings for every project. Some are small average houses, some are large commercial/industrial buildings. Today's building tipped the scales at 850,000 s.f., for which I had only to measure some detailed areas. A concern is the availability of power so that I'm not completely reliant on the limited charge of the battery. Some of these measures take a lot of time and there are no outlets. I'm finding the available charge* running vectorworks is 4.5-5 hours, which is for me marginal. I have a set of moves to make the best of things. I turn off wifi and quit all application except VW and Accountedge (time tracking). Sometimes I turn down the screen illumination. MacOS has power saving options and I use those. I also have an external battery (Chargetech) that provides an AC outlet. I'm still sizing it up, but it appears it will be good for an additional 1.5-2 hours, which is getting me close to a good day's work. What strikes me, though, is that the battery life from the combination of this laptop (battery reports good condition) and VW16 doesn't seem to be what it used to be with an older laptop, an earlier version, and an older OS. It feels like I've got 1.5-2 hours less run time with this set up. So, finally, I have a question: Is power consumption something that can be influenced by application software design, and if yes, does the VW team consider it a priority, and if yes, is there more that can be done? Thanks, Donald *mid 2015 mbp, 2.5 i7, 16g ram, graphics chip upgrade. El Capitan. Wacom usb.
  6. Jim Smith makes a good point that is similar to some others, namely that less specific drawings, which lend themselves to the hybrid approach, better serve the end purpose of an architect or similar professionals. I have marveled at the general nature of drawings which were used to construct some impressive edifices, and which were drawn in ink, only reproducible by tracing, and for which a 13 story buildings was described on 5 sheets. This strikes me as a delicious irony---that the high tech tools that allow us in theory to do very specific drawings, push us to do implicit drawings. I have also listened in years past to a lot of skilled draftsmen, who also said "less is more." So while it is a good point to consider, when I do that, I disagree with it. There are many reasons, and I sense that in different parts of the world the nature of construction differs to the extent that in some very developed countries, the tradition tends toward the approximate and less specific. That's fine, I do not argue that they should change. The main reason I disagree, and I don't mean to say that my view should be the view of everyone else, is that in my experience, though, more specific and more accurate is more difficult, a lot more tedious, it gives far more predictable results, with less to argue about. Also, the drawings we do in my part of the world, form the basis of contracts and as in all contracts, implicit or equivocal language is the seed of argument. One of the main downfalls of hybrid in my view, is that it is relatively approximate, even though the dimensional tolerances may be too small to measure. That dimensional tolerance may give a false sense of achievement. It is the equivocation that is a natural result a technique that must be approximate in comparison to the more laborious 2D technique, that I think leads to less predictable, and thus less acceptable results. Really appreciate the thoughts I see in this thread.
  7. col, My thoughts tie to the hybrid idea, and which is an extension I think of your original 2 drafters. The Hybrid is the 3D and 2D drafter working together in some way. The 2d drafter can express vertical complexity in a plan drawing in different ways, using notes, dashed lines, excerpted portions of a wall at a higher or lower height. For him, none of that is an intervention, It's just what he does normally. For the 2d drafter, as I see it, every line has a meaning and there are no lines which do not mean anything or are remnants of a tool which has trouble clearly expressing itself. Walls and windows are hybrid tools and would not necessarily be used by the strict 2D drafter. Yet he is still able, with high grade 2D CAD, to draw in a day, what 3-4 very capable people with a pencil could have done. And still draw, in the 2D realm, the best and most accurate 2D drawings. Considering the end use of the drawings, that is a good outcome.
  8. << If we want to convert something purely 3d to some kind of plan representation, getting the clip cube to work with fills and so that it can be viewported to a sheet is the best idea I've heard.>> I too think this is a reasonable idea, but this is a hybrid that sorta works better. The complexity mushrooms if you try to do what the 2D drafter could do, which is show in one plan section, elements cut at different heights. It will not, I think, get a better 2D drafted product, but will improve what the 3D drafter does. Not a merger of the two. I'd add, that Pete Retondos web link leads to some very, very nice work. This is a good data point when we fuss over the back room technique.
  9. < When we think of what CAD ought to be, in a perfect world, when it is far from easily done, when it amounts to a new experience we want but can't yet have, when it seems only right that what isn't should be, it raises the question: is this an engineering problem or a utopian idea? One thing that sets utopian ideas apart, or defines them, is that fact that there is some present barrier that makes them not attainable. Merging the two drafters (US side of the pond here) is a bit like a sex change where both receive the sex of the other and keep their original parts. Another quality of an utopian or highly desired idea, is that "sorta works" is not good enough. Were that not true, would we be having this conversation? What we have sorta works. We have great engineers. Why isn't this just an engineering problem? I think it is because when you start to unpack this problem, the complexity mushrooms beyond belief. Both drafters are engaged in a process of selective approximation. They are discarding information from consideration. Each can find the essential information for their purpose, which in one case to describe form and the other to describe assemblies. Each makes very approximate, (or discards) information dear to the other. The utopian merge would require, I think, information without approximation and a higher entity to manage it. Right now, the two drafters have a hard time knowing for sure that something in their world doesn't work in the other. Sections are a good example of this. This higher entity would be a form of intelligence, not just a pre-programmed series of logical steps. Information without approximation is an enormous data set. It's not hard to imagine that technological advances will make these two things possible. But right now, it is the stuff of dreams. So now, for those on the front lines of architecture and the like, and particularly those in smaller organizations, there are, vis-a-vis this conversation, two options: 1. Sorta good and always getting sorta better and much better than it used to be hybrid. 2. Separate 2D and 3D. I chose number 2, but that's just because I'm a bit picky. In most cases number 1 will get the job done.
  10. There is a right way to use VW and a wrong way. The right way is 3d hybrid. I hear and accept that Top/Plan view does not work really well for that. Personally, I think the wrong way is the right way, and for that Top/Plan view is perfect. I should qualify that. It is the right way for the kind of work that I do, which is mostly work, often very complicated and detailed, that can pretty much be done by one architect. It's not like I never drank the Kool-Aid either. I was a drinker from Minicad 3/4 on. It's just that eventually I realized that my vision of CAD utopia wasn't going to happen in my lifetime. I was probably on the wagon for good around MC/VW 8. Then the question became, how to do the most professional, un compromised work? For my work the solution was to pull the hybrid apart, to its rightful constituent elements: a 3D modeling environment for design and visualization studies; and, a 2D drawing environment to describe and communicate what is to be built and how. In that solution, there was no need for the two parts to be the same software, or to have a "conversation" in two different languages in the same drawing package. I went for quality and usability in each part, and for that, VW gets the 2D nod. It's got a bruise or too, but still by far, The Champ. So long live the top/plan view.
  11. Using the retina displays, the line weight is so fine, and the cursor in some modes is so fine, that I have a hard time finding the cursor sometimes. As a remedy I've started using full screen cursor. That is an improvement. However, on the retina display, the full cursor and the default thin line are so thin (like a 000 radiograph) that the cursor lines sometimes confuse with the drawing lines. I'd like to assign a different color to the cursor. Can this be done? Thanks, Donald
  12. In the beginning, the beauty of Mac/Minicad, was that it let people work the way they wanted. Industry standard was still somebody's next great idea. But I'm out of that original era. I applaud the adaptation of tools to the particular needs of the mechanic/artist. I think it's great that some people think scroll wheels are the bee's knees. One of my best architect friends thinks nothing could be better. I haven't used a mouse in 25 years. I'm on my 4th or 5th Wacom. I draw very accurately and very fast. I'm fine if others do not use or like Wacoms. All I'm asking is for double click zoom out to work inside groups like it used to. Donald
  13. Jim, In the original minicad, "v" was the zoom out tool. I've never seen a need to change it. Again, the problem is simply that it doesn't work in groups. Outside of groups it works normally. Donald
  14. I find a quick technique is to double click on the key board short cut, "v" in my case. Hit the key twice and it zooms out. What I notice is that this is not working inside groups. Used to. Current how and software (El Capitan) Donald
  15. Oh, never mind. I accidentally, somehow changed the text style in the text tool. Unsettled gives no fill. d.
  16. I have a file that has decided to always put a white fill behind text. I have "use Layer colors" unchecked. I have create text without fill checked. It has just recently started doing this. Same behavior on two different computers. I am missing some setting? Thanks, Donald Latest version of everything. MacOS.
  17. I get an alert when launching VW; "Do you want the application "Vectorworks2016.app" to accept incoming network connections?" I routinely deny. Why would it be necessary to accept? What is the disadvantage to selecting deny? Thanks, Donald 10.11.4
  18. Ditto others that this is an interesting threads. I'd like to add my two cents. 1. I'm a long time user, 25 years, since MC3. 2. I've seen conversations like this before. I remember clearly the aspirations for 3d CAD, which was realized by the ability to extrude a rectangle in MC3, and do so with a little more utility, but still essentially useless utility, in MC4. The question: "Is this where we want to be?" is always a good one. 3. The question as to whether VW/MC is an evolutionary dead end is more or less eternal. It's still here. 4. I've not generally been a fan of he direction of VW over the last 15 years because it departed, in my view, from its early "here's a better way" engineering [Does anyone remember how amazing a real smart cursor was?] idea, to more of a "we can do it as well as you" philosophy that has transformed the program into a second tier auto cad. Still, if you know how to use it, it is a really good program. It's my main squeeze. 5. I lament a little the trend to components and categorization. We used to joke about how auto cad used to need different layers/classes for every different line weight/color/style. In the beginning, for VW/MC, drawing information trumped drawing organization. Now, at best it is a toss up. 6. It strikes me that Nature likes failures and successes and doesn't much like a lack of choices. I, therefore, take standardization as less than a religion. 7. I really like the post by 37400 in this thread, his first one. He said: " I'd rather they focussed first on making the 3D modelling capabilities themselves adequate. My feeling is that we are only part way to the point where it's actually feasible to build one 3D model and then generate all the necessary info from that." Me too. I say don't try to take over the world with big ideas if the little key details are not there yet. 8. I'm sort of a down to earth architect. I don't just work to imagine beautiful things, I worry about how to get them built. I try to understand what the ideas look like at the end of a hammer and to the gal that swings it. The work that people are doing with VW transitions to that practical end in very rough and very smooth ways. The smooth way, has lots of translators between the pencil and the hammer. The rough way has the pencil talking directly to the hammer. Sometimes the hammer speaks, mainly, Espanol. The idea that everyone in the chain can measure a board and manipulate a 3D model seems not of the present world to me. The world is rough to me. 9. I grant that in the quite large projects, nobody knows too much. Everybody knows some little important part. In the medium sized to small projects, order (effective progress) requires a few people with transcendent responsibilities. This puts the keeper of the design in a complicated role as chief adult, master facilitator, and number one end to end voice. This is at times at odds with the democratic ideal of a project model everyone can edit. 10. So to return to one of the key themes of this thread, the future of VW, I'd give it 50%. Its future may be better than mine, but it think it is aligned with going with the flow. I recommend a cell division. Identify a few differentiated directions for the product, (not industry related but workflow related), find the most creative leaders for each direction, give them access to the patents and technology, retain a piece for profits, pray for all of them to prosper, and see what happens. All the best, Donald
  19. Err, not so fast. Bug persists. Sometimes the pallet display behaves, sometimes not. d.
  20. The latest version of El Cap, fixes the line weight bug here. (10.11.2). Donald
  21. Oh never mind. I see how to sort the first column. Donald
  22. The publish dialogue lists the saved views in reverse order. This causes the pdf file to show the last page first and the first page last. It is necessary to drag the sheets into the publish window one at a time and in the normal, desired order.
  23. Using a late 2015 iMac, el capitan and vw16. The line weight display in the attributes pallet does not display correctly the current or selected line weight. If I open the pallet, the correct line weight is checked. If I close the pallet the correct one might be and it might not. Right now, it is out of synch. I've noticed this since I got the new machine. I started with service pack 1, then upgraded to 2, and it made no difference. It seems to remember on the outside the last selection made on the inside. Whenever the outside does not reflect the inside line weight selected, dropping down the menu corrects it. It does sometime prevent knowing what line weight is selected before drawing a line. No other problems with El Capitan. Donald
  24. Hi Jim, I use a custom work space, but I have the same problem with VW standard workspaces. Don't quite get the admin account part. I'm not on a network and I log in with admin privileges. Here's what I see. If I hit the pallet manager button, it closes the fill options window. Also, I have the same problem if I launch VW15, which I don't use much*. * In 2014 the eyedropper tool highlights the object it is picking up from. In 2015 I'm not getting that feedback. I use that tool a fair amount.
  25. I'm just noticing in VW2014, that the color pallet manager button, which I see when I click in the attributes pallet, on one of the fill squares, does nothing. I click it and it just closes the color pallet window. Also, this does not allow me to bring the standard VW pallets into a document. Any documents created from documents with the standard pallets have the standard pallets, but the color pallet manager button does not work there either. VW is up to date. Thanks, Donald osx 10.10.3
×
×
  • Create New...