mjm

Sweet! Nice and simple. Thanks, much appreciated.

Yay for finding solutions! But do tell us what approach worked for you. It's entirely likely your solution might solve other similar issues I've run into in the past and sure will in future.

I could not agree with Gadzooks more. I would suggest a "Class Policy" document visible on the resources drawing you would be creating, so your team understand the what/why of the classing structures.

Try the Spotlight Menu "Find and Modify…"

Gotta love a workaround this simple. Thanks man.

just did a modified (not this thorough) version of the tech support tutorial on a current document.How I wished I'd thought of or read about the saved views solution. Thanks Jeremy

Cool!

Hey there MikeW, I didn't find Beam/Field angles on the website, so wrote you & then called the US office and they kindly emailed me the specs for both PATT 2013 + 2017 & Pickle Patt. DM me if that data is of interest.

As the attached illustrates, I been acting the fool. Missed the changing Z of the Focus Points & not sure how that happened, but so happy to understand it was me and not VWX. Really appreciate the feedback! Act a foo.mp3

Yep, once seen, a carbuncle can never be unseen, much like the Crystal Entrance.

Hi again Rob, appreciate you jumping in here. In the vwx I have submitted, I was careful I thought in setting all trims to same heights and all foci straight down to closest Focus point. Perhaps I got that wrong, so in order to check myself, I have copied/pasted into a new blank doc two fixtures and their focus points, then checked their Z hts and focus. All seems in order except for the result. See attached. Your opinion? As always - my thanks edit: the final image below show screencap of entire window with just fixtures selected. The OIP shows all Z @ 16', so something seems to be going on. Crazy Weird small.vwx

I did. Please note the results in the attached (VWX + PDF) items. Same problem. Thoughts Mr Books? TiA, Michael CrazyWeirdsh__t_v2019.vwx

Hey there Mike; as you may have seen, in 2019 there are pre-built Robe PATT 2017s!! Huzzah! Having been pointed in that direction by Rob Books I think, I have placed them in a drawing and found that the filed & beam angles set as their default is 37º. I notice yours set to 94º field / 29º beam. How did you come up with those numbers? TiA, Michael

Thanks Rob, I will.

Here's a copy / paste from a current document in 2018 SPlatest, which had exhibited same behavior in 2019 SP2. The Drawn beams, tho all relevant data are same fixture to fixture, the beams drawn are bizarrely wrong. Any thoughts? Also, this is a fixture downloaded from this forum, the creator is… @mikewright, thanks man & thanks all!

Here's an image, showing an issue I have not noticed before: Two Spotlight Fixtures, roughly framing the window test units. The first image shows clearly the shutter cuts making the framing. The second image shows what happens when fog is added to the two fixtures. Something's not right…Let me know what I am doing wrong. Oh, also—that fog is set to 01%. Seems kinda heavy to me for 01%. Matter of fact, I just closed the file, reopened, then changed fog to 75%. Can't see any difference between 01% >75%. Oh, yeah, just checked, same issues in 2018 SP latest. And for those of you keeping score, here's the result in C4D r18 (bottom image) What we see there is that I have changed the two fixtures with fog from the default visible light: VISIBLE to visible light: VOLUMETRIC. Does this mean that true C4D volumetric lighting is not available in VW? Instead of actually getting work done today, I produced all this mess. I'd rather be doing the work I need to, rather than exploring why my tools don't do what's promised

Great info, thanks, I'll try later today when I'm back on that project.

Dealing with this just now. Ouch.

This is exactly what I was looking for. As always, thank you.

^ And this let's one preview the change live in context (in Open GL). Enormously helpful. texture Rotation.mp4

Whether or not I have said this before, let me say it here now: I might very well have been long gone from this CAD platform if Jim Wilson hadn't shown up in the nick of time to be the face of VW I prefer to see. Thanks man. And but, if things (tools/documents) continue to change/shift/grow in complexity, does that not suggest the urgency of a solution to the legacy code as the highest imperative? And why add complexity when the codebase cannot truly support it? (Thanks Jim for your patience, a great asset)

When I read things like the above, and thenexperience the decidedly un-smooth release of VW 2019 (it's still not reliable enough for me, even after Sp1.1) And I imagine all the engineers being thrown at those issues instead of fixing the really big issue of legacy code I get sadface. Someone is pointing the ship at the wrong landmarks.

Also; having to spend billable time learning new stuff to do old things every year seems crazy to me, as well as imagining that in a 365 day cycle, the engineers will have ironed out all the bugs and then create a new better app which actually increases productivity. For ex: I stopped using 2019 almost immediately due to several reasons, not least of which was the black render viewport problem, which was apparently fixed in SP1.1. Not true, happened again to me yesterday and after five minutes of tinkering, exported the file back to 2018. Only fix I found was closing and re-opening the app. I don't have time for that. So, back in 2018 till next SP. Oh wait: Also, 2019 stopped highlighting or showing in any way that I'd selected an object. Surest way to see was to hit delete. If line disappeared, I'd managed to select it.

Glad you're safe, sorry for those who are not so lucky.

Me too, but I can afford candy.